INDIAN nSH AND WILDUFE ENHANCEMENT
Y 4. R 31/3: 103-5
IndiiA Fish aad Uildlife Enhaacenea. . . xl-Ci AKiJN (jT
HE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Serial No. 103-5
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
cn
'^t*>^^' j^i
*<ri/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE "^'C^>r-c\ —irtfii
68-141 WASHINGTON : 1993 ' -°^???y*«.
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-040916-0
INDIAN nSH AND WILDUFE ENHANCEMENT
Y 4. R 31/3: 103-5
Indian Fish and Uildlife Eohancenen. . . rill* AKiJN Cj
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Serial No. 103-5
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
/ '"i*»
^'%.
^L^^'-'''
^^^^'^^^a
•J > ■
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE '^'^Vv,*^^/^/^!,
68-141 WASHINGTON : 1993 ' -■^(JTy^i.
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-040916-0
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
House of Representatives
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
RICHARD H. LEHMAN, CaUfomia
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA,
American Samoa
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LARRY LaROCCO, Idaho
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico
KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona
KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
HOWARD BERMAN, California
LANE EVANS, Illinois
PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
Daniel P. Beard, Staff Director
Richard Meltzer, General Counsel
Daniel Val Kish, Republican Staff Director
DON YOUNG, Alaska,
Ranking Republican Member
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
KEN CALVERT, California
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming,
Ranking Republican Member
DON YOUNG, Alaska
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
KEN CALVERT, California
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
Samoa
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona
Tadd Johnson, Staff Director
Steven J.W. Heeley, Counsel
Marie Howard, Professional Staff Member
Barbara Robles, Clerk
Richard H. Houghton, III, Republican Counsel on Native American Affairs
(ID
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held February 18, 1993 1
Member statements:
Bill Richardson ^
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega ^°
Witness statements:
Panel consisting of: ,. •„ a i. m u
Hon. Wainwright Velarde, vice president, Jicanlla Apache Tribe,
Duke, NM, accompanied by Rudy Velarde, member. Tribal Council,
and assistant director, Jicanlla Apache Game and Fish Depart-
ment "■• ^
Summary of Fish and WildUfe Management Programs on the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation VV;"^ ^
Gloria Notah, wildlife manager, Navajo Nation Department of Fish
and WildUfe, on behalf of President Peterson Zah and the Navajo
Nation 24
Panel consisting of: . t^ , r t i
Hon. Thomas Maulson, chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians, Wisconsin, accompanied by Larry
Wawronowicz, director, Chippewa Natural Resources Department .. 39
James H. Schlender, executive administrator, The Great Lakes In-
dian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI 46
Ken Poynter, enrolled member, Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and
acting executive director. Native American Fish & WildUfe Society,
Broomfield, CO •"•. 61
Fred DuBray, coordinator. Administration for Native American Bison
Enhancement Project, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte,
SD, and president, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative 87
Panel consisting of: , ™, .. ,
Hon. Nelson Wallulatum, Chief, Wasco Tribe, and member, Tnbal
Council, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reserva-
tion, OR, accompanied by Howard Amett, Esq., tribal attorney 139
Supplemental statement of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation 147
Billy Frank, chairman. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission,
Olympia, WA, accompanied by James R. Anderson, director 149
Jim Harp, fisheries manager and elected representative, Quinault
Indian Nation, Taholah, WA 165
APPENDIX
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Additional Material SuBMiTrED for the Record
Testimony of Ferdinand Martineau, executive director, 1854 Authority 177
Statment of Harrison Talgo, Sr., chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San
Carlos, AZ 180
Statement of Brain Czech, director, San Carlos Recreation & WildUfe Depart-
ment, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Carlos, AZ -. 183
Testimony of Leonard C. Burch, Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal Coim-
cil, Ignacio, CO — 190
Testimony of Faith McGruther, executive director, Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty
Fishery Management Authority, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 194
(III)
IV
Page
Testimony of Gerald F. Brun, chairman, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,
Red Lake, MN .^^ 205
Testimony of Harry D. Early, Governor, Pueblo of Laguna Tnbe, NM •••••••••" -21^
Letter from Western Shoshone National Council dated February 18, 1993
regarding the management of Wildlife, etc ...... ...^..... •,;r,u"" j "/"i "w {1
Letter from Robert B. Peacock, chairman. Fond Du Lac Tnbe dated March
12, 1993, regarding the management and enhancement of Indian fisn
and Wildlife resources, with attachments ^^
INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AND ENHANCEMENT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1993
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 9:44 a.m., in room 1310A, Longworth
House Office Building, the Honorable Bill Richardson presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARDSON
Mr. Richardson. The Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
will come to order.
Indian fish and wildlife resources are an integral part of the eco-
nomic and social structure of Indian tribes. Since time immemorial,
Indian tribes have rehed on fish and wildlife resources for subsist-
ence, economic development, and cultural practices.
Today, we will be hearing from tribal witnesses fi-om across the
nation about their efforts to improve the management of these im-
portant resources. We will also hear testimony about the lack of
federal involvement in, and assistance for, tribal efforts to improve
fish and Indian habitat, increase native fish and Indian popu-
lations, and to undertake other conservation measures on tribal
lands.
I'd like to remind all the witnesses that your entire written state-
ments will be made part of the committee hearing record, so please
feel free to summarize your statements within five minutes.
[At this time, I request the background be made part of the
record:]
Background for February 18th Hearing on Indian Fish and Wildlife
Management
HISTORY
Indian fish and wildlife resources have been, and continue to be, an integral part
of tribal economic and social structure. In most treaties with the Federal govern-
ment, Indian tribes reserved the right to fish, hunt and gather in their "usual and
accustomed places". The right of Indian tribes to hunt, fish and gather have been
the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As a general rule, Indians
enjoy the exclusive right to hunt and fish on their reservations. In United States
V. Winans. 198 U.S. 371, 380-81 (1905) the Supreme Court considered the right of
the Yakima Indian tribe to hunt and fish at their usual and accustomed places pur-
suant to an 1859 treaty. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court recognized the
right of the Yakima Indian to use privately owned land in exercising their treaty
fishing rights.
Traditionally, the Courts have interpreted Indian hunting, fishmg and gathermg
rights very broadly. Tribal rights to hunt, fish and gather have been recognized by
the courts to exist in ceded territories, aboriginal lands and on reservation areas.
(1)
Similarly, courts have recognized the importance of tribal hunting, fishing and gath-
ering rights to tribal self-sufficiency. Economic interests in tribal fishing rights as
well as subsistence interests were considered by the courts in several cases in the
northwest.
In United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), the district
court recognized the treaty fishing rights of the Tribes in Washington State and
held that those fishing rights could not be limited by the States to certain species
or type of fish, and these rights include wild fish and hatchery bred fish.
In recognizing the rights of tribal regulation of hunting and fishing rights, the
Ninth Circuit held in Settler v. Lameer, 507 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1974) that:
"[i]t would be unreasonable to conclude that in reserving these vital [fishing]
rights, the Indians intended to divest themselves of all control over the exercise of
those rights. Prior to the Treaty the regulations for fishing had been established by
the Tribe through its customs and tradition. The Indians must surely have under-
stood that Tribal control would continue afi^r the Treaty."
The importance of fish and wildlife resources to Indian tribes have been and con-
tinue to be recognized by the courts. While the courts have recognized the impor-
tance of these resources, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
has provided little support or assistance to tribal efforts to manage these resources.
Efforts to improve fish and wildlife habitat, increase resident population of fish and
wildlife, and undertake conservation measures have been left entirely to Indian
tribes.
HEARING
This hearing will focus on fish and wildlife management issues for Indian tribes.
Indian tribes are faced with a multiplicity of issues surrounding the effective man-
agement and enhancement of Indian fish and wildlife resources. These resources
provide a significant resource base for subsistence, economic development and other
cultural purposes for Indian tribes and their members. Many Indian tribes have ex-
pressed concerns that existing federal laws do not adequately provide for the protec-
tion and management of tribal fish and wildlife resources and do not address the
operations of tribal facilities.
The Committee will receive testimony from wide range of Indian tribes fi-om very
distinct regions of the country. The tribal witnesses will provide testimony on their
ongoing efforts to improve fish and wildlife habitat, to cooperatively manage these
resources with states and other Indian tribes, to increase native fish and wildlife
populations and to undertake conservation efforts on these lands. In addition, tribes
will testify about the federal trust responsibilities to enhance Indian fish and wild-
life resources.
The hearing record is going to remain open for two weeks.
I'd now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no opening statement. I am interested very much in this
issue, and again, in my home state, why fishing and hxmting of
course on the reservation is a very important item, and it pertains
not only to the hunting and fishing itself, but the management of
water. And there are jurisdictional problems there, so I'm inter-
ested in what we're doing.
Thank you.
Mr. Richardson. I thank my colleague.
Our first panel this morning will be the Honorable Wainwnght
Velarde, Vice President, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, fi*om Dulce, New
Mexico, accompanied by Rudy Velarde, Assistant Director, Game
and Fish Department, and Ms. Gloria Notah, Wildlife Manager,
Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Navajo Nation in Wmdow
Rock, Arizona.
If you could please step up to the witness stand and take your
seats.
I'd like to welcome you to the Subcommittee, especially smce
both of you are my constituents.
Window Rock, Ms. Notah, you probably are a resident of across
the border, are you not?
Ms. NOTAH. TTiat's correct.
Mr. Richardson. So a special welcome to all of you.
We'll start with Mr. Velarde, the Honorable Velarde.
As I mentioned, please keep your summarizing remarks to five
minutes, and then we will proceed with questions.
So Hon. Vice President, please proceed.
PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE, VICE
PRESIDENT, JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY
RUDY VELARDE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JICARILLA APACHE
GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT; AND GLORIA NOTAH, WILDLIFE
MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, NAVAJO
NATION, WINDOW ROCK, AZ
STATEMENT OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE
Mr. Velarde. Good morning, Mr, Chairman.
I'm Wainwright Velarde, Vice President of the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe. And I'm accompanied by Mr. Rudy Velarde, member of the
Tribal Council, and Assistant Director of the Jicarilla Apache
Game and Fish Department.
I'm very pleased to be here to provide this committee with an
overview of the Fish and Wildlife Management Program of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and the major issues as we see them.
I've prepared a formal statement and our Game and Fish Depart-
ment has prepared a summary of our programs, that I would like
to have entered into the record.
Mr. Richardson. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE /^// y^/y^
p. O BOX 507 • DULCE. NEW MEXICO 87528-0507
JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE
DULCE. NEW MEXICO
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY
Int roduct ion
The following summary outlines the fish and wildlife resources
and management programs on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
Specifics are provided on tribal fish and wildlife management
capabilities, program funding sources, staffing, and income derived
from hunting and fishing license sales. The Jicarilla Apache Tribe
has an aggressive, professional fish and wildlife program which
provides quality hunting d fishing opportunities to both Indians
and non-indians.
The Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation is located in north-
central New Mexico and contains approximately 830,000 acres of
land. The entire reservation is owned col 1 ec t i ve ly by the Jicarilla
Apache Tribe; there are no individual private holdings within the
reservation. There is only one town located on the reservation.
Dulce, where the majority of the 2800 tribal members reside. The
rest of the reservation serves as habitat for indigenous wildlife
species including elk, mule deer, black bear, mountain lion, turkey
and a wide variety of non-game, small game, and waterfowl species.
The Reservation contains 7 fishing lakes totaling 1200 surface
acres, a 10 mile stretch of the Navajo River, and an 8 mile stretch
of Willow Creek. All of these water support cold water fisheries.
The largest natural lake in New Mexico. Stinking Lake ( 1300
acres), is located on the reservation and serves as the premier
waterfowl breeding area in New Mexico.
Primary land uses on the J i car i 1 la Reservat ion are oil and gas
production, commercial timber production, 1 livestock grazing and
recreational hunting and fishing.
I. Fish and Wild life Populations
The Jicarilla Game and Fish department conducts annual surveys
to determine population size for dominant game species. The
following figures reflect the must current estimates.
Rocky Mountain Elk
There are approximately 3000 resident elk on the Jicarilla
Reservation. This number swells to approximately 5000 elk during
winter when elk migrate to the reservation from surrounding
mountains in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The
Jicarilla Reservation is a major wintering area for portions of the
San Juan Mountains elk herd.
Mule Deer
There are approximately 3,500 resident mule deer and 5000
winter migrant mule deer on the Jicarilla Reservation. The
reservation has a well established reputation for producing
exceptional trophy bucks. thanks to a conservative harvest
St rategy .
Pronghorn
Approximately 125-150 pronghorn roam the Jicarilla
Reservation, decedents of animals transplanted from Colorado in the
early 19S0's. This transplant has dovetailed well with similar
transplants made in recent years by the State of New Mexico and
Bureau of Land Management on lands adjacent to the reservation.
Black Bear/Mountain Lion
The Jicarilla Reservation contains some of the best black bear
habitat in New Mexico. .Approximately 150 black bears reside year-
round on the reservation. Mountain lions are relatively abundant
due to the high numbers of mule deer and elk that constitute this
species' prey base. Estimates of total lion numbers range from 60-
75.
Turkey
Turkey have been increasing in number and expanding their
distribution in recent years. There are approximately 500-750
turkey residing on the reservation.
Wat e r fowl
The Jicarilla Reservation contains the most extensive complex
of wetlands in northern New Mexico and accounts for a significant
proportion of the total waterfowl production in the state.
Stinking Lake has long been recognized as a unique breeding site
for resident waterfowl and a significant resting site for migrants.
Counts of 10,000-15.000 waterfowl and waterbirds are common. The
fishing lakes and innumerable ponds and wet meadows scattered
across the reservation also harbor a variety of nesting waterfowl
and add to the biological diversity of the region.
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are two active Peregrine Falcon nests on the Jicarilla
Reservation, and j'oung have been consistently fledged from both
nests for the past 5 years. These endangered falcons are dependent
on the abundant waterfowl associated with reservation wetlands.
There have been sightings of unpaired adult peregrines at two other
locations on the reservation, and these birds may soon become
established as additional breeding pairs.
The me.\ican spotted owl, a candidate threatened species, also
occurs on the Jicarilla Reservation, albeit in low numbers.
Golden eagles nest on the Jicarilla Reservation, and the entire
reservation serves as wintering grounds for both Bald and Golden
eagles. Counts of 50-75 eagles each winter are common.
Sma 1
of
game/Non-game
The vast majority of land on the Jicarilla Reservation
undisturbed wild country which supports literally hundreds
mammal and bird species. The mi.x of habitat types and abundance
free water result in high biological diversity.
of
of
F i sher ies
The Jicarilla Apache Reservation contains appro.x imat e ly 1200
acres of fishing waters, including 7 fishing lakes ranging from .15-
450 acres in size, a 10 mile stretch of the Navajo River, and an S
mile stretch of Willow Creek. All of these waters support cold
water fisheries and are maintained through annual stocking. Each
year appro.x imat e ly 160.000 trout, bass and catfish, totaling 16,000
pounds, are stocked in reservation lakes. These fish are stocked
solely for the benefit of recreational fisherman.
II ,
Fish and Wildlife Management Capabilities
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has sole jurisdiction over fish and
wildlife management and hunting and fishing recreation on the
reservation. The Jicarilla Game and Fish Department, established
in 1959. is responsible for all fish and wildlife management
programs, setting season dates and harvest levels for fish and
wildlife populations, and conducting any habitat improvement or 5
research projects. Department staffing consists of 23 individuals.
as shown in the accompanying flow chart.
Fund 1 ng for
derived from the
6 33 wildlife and
Bureau of Indian
fishing 1 icenses
general fund.
the department is from two sources: 1) revenues
sale of hunting and fishing licenses and. 2) 93-
parks and outdoor recreation contracts from the
.•\ffairs. Revenues from the sale of hunting and
are deposited annually in the Jicarilla Tribe's
CO
2
*-*
u
en
a:
<
3
o
a
G
<
~
C
<
co
<
0
•H
J
Q
m
f— 1
2
Ci
<
<
W
c
m
O
<
u
o
o
OJ —
u
■r-l
Q
o
a
u
Q
-u ■
c
w
•r-l
CO
CO
<
c
X}
o
09
•^
•r-l
CO
Dl
-^
O
>
^ CO
-^
O -1 c
Q
•V
■-I 03 TJ
(U
CQ U -H
'-i
•M
■^ u
ro
U-l
Qj ai-i
CJ
• »H
l4J o c
-rH
4J
■rH ^ x:
Cr
Vj
-< o u
o
0
TD — 1 O
.-(
o
-H CQ E-i
0
-^
• M
r— (
2 m
a
c
o
•rH
CO
■H
>
u
•H
0)
Q
a
cu
0)
Q)
O
Si:
C
ro
CO
n
5
c
jj
D
c
0
•H
u
S-l
ro
O
O
s
CO
CO
\ u
-fH
\J
U —1
T3
>
<D
o c
C
M
U
-o ro
ro
OJ
5
■rH ^
Q.
c u
CO
3
ro
ro 0)
v>
c/: J
>-> X
i-l
ro
. — 1
(N
^H .— )
Cl<
0
CO
■iH
i-i
CO
<D
■rH
U
>
•f~i
-rM
Wj
c
Uj
O
JJ
c
C
0)
0
p
r:3
cu
u
A) ro
1-1
c >
o
ro u
t-l
0) 0)
c
G\ CO
a
^ c
0) 0
a
CO o
ro
J
-H CO
CO
0)
•H
c
u
0
i-l ro
-rH
(D jJ
CO
U 1)
■rH
•H 1-1
>
u-i u
■iH
U-l (1)
ca
O CO
".— t
'H 0)
ro
ro e
-iH
■M -r-l
i-l
U -!->
ro
C 1
-i_>
ro -H
o
C -H
u
•H 3
0
Cl, Cu
QJ
C/5
— 1 rsl
8
The Game and Fish Department submits on annual budget to the
Tribal Council, based on need and income generated. In some years
the approved budget exceeds the income generated, in other years
income exceeds the approved budget. Funding levels for FY1993
were :
Jicarilla Game and Fish Department Funding
Tribal Funds
638 Contract Funds
Total
5507,432. 36
$133,250.00
$640,681 .36
Each division of the Game and Fish Department functions
separately but in coordination with other department divisions. The
major duties of each division are:
A. Secretarial
This division is responsible for selling fishing and hunting
licenses, accounting related to department expenditures and income,
dispensing public information and all normal office secretarial
work (word-processing, filing etc...)
B. Law Enforcement
This division is responsible for patrolling the 830.000 acre
reservation and enforcing the Game and Fish Code (Title 10).
Health, Safety and Welfare Code (Title 6) Tribal Offenses Code
(Title 7). Traffic Code (Title 8), Range Code (Title 9) and
Environmental Protection Code (Title 14).
All employees of this division are commissioned offices of the
Tribe and have jurisdiction to issue citations, arrest, and seize
equipment from both Indians and non-indians on the Jicarilla
Reservation.
-5-
C. Parks and Maintenance
This division is responsible for the maintenance and of all
department buildings. vehicles and equipment, as well as
maintenance of all campground and recreational sites on the
reservation. It is also responsible for maintaining a 14.500 acre
elk game park fence, and for feeding approximately 600 elk in the
park during winter months.
D. Biological Division
This division is responsible for monitoring fish and wildlife
populations; implementing game, fish and habitat projects and:
providing recommendations for fishing and hunting seasons and
harvest levels. This division also addresses any potential impacts
to fish and wildlife from other tribal and federal actions.
Each year the Game and Fish Department is charged with
completing, at a minimum, the following tasks.
Set annual fishing and hunting regulations, including
season dates, legal weapons, bag limits, permit numbers
etc . . ,
Monitor harvest of all fish and wildlife from the
reservation by species, age and sex.
Administer the tribes Animal Damage Control Program.
Conduct aerial classification surveys to determine
age:sex ratios for mule deer, elk and pronghorn
popu 1 at ions .
Stock reservation waters with fish for recreational
f i shermen .
Monitor water chemistry, water levels and aquatic
vegetation growth in reservation lakes, as they relate to
fish survival and recreational fishing.
Maintain campgrounds located at 4 reservation lakes.
Patrol reservation and enforce Tribal Codes.
Assist tribal and client hunters during fall hunting
seasons .
-6-
10
Manage the trophy hunting program for non-
indian hunting clientele.
Conduct wildlife surveys and impact assessments for other
land use programs including timber sales, grazing
programs, oil and gas exploration and road construction.
Plan and implement habitat improvement projects.
Maintain department building and storage sheds, 15
vehicles, 2 snow-cats, 5 snowmobiles, 3 generators, 2
boats/motors and other miscellaneous equipment.
Winter feed approximately 600 elk in the Horse Lake Mesa
Game Park.
Promote the Tribe's hunting and fishing program through
extensive mailings, public contact and display
booths at hunting and fishing expositions.
Prepare reports, data files, correspondence and funding
proposals for department projects.
Prepare and monitor contracts for animal damage control,
data processing and map compilation, fencing projects and
construction of wildlife waters.
In addition to these annual tasks the Jicarilla Game and Fish
Department posted several noteworthy accomplishments in recent
years , inc 1 ud ing :
Revision of the Tribal Game and Fish Code (Title 10) to
include mandatory fines, a civil restitution schedule, and
seizure and forfeiture statute; making this one of the
nation's strictest Game and Fish Codes.
For 8 years the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has requested and
received approval for special migratory waterfowl seasons
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Tribes
seasons have always been more conservative than federal
gu ide 1 i nes .
In FY1991 the Jicarilla Tribe received funding from the
North American Wetlands Conservation Council for the
Jicarilla Wetlands Project. This project was aimed at
improving waterfowl nesting success on the Jicarilla
Reser\'ation.
-7-
11
In 19S2 the JicariUa Game and Fish Department began an 8
year study to determine the migration pattern of mule deer
and elk on and around the Jicarilla Reservation. Eighty
nine elk and mule deer were captured, fitted with radio-
transmitting collars, then released and tracked for up to
4 years. This study confirmed the migration patterns used
by elk and deer and allowed the Tribe to refine its
management program to account for migration of big game
across tribal, state and federal jurisdictional boundaries.
In 19S9 the San Juan Interstate Wildlife Working Group was
formed. This group of wildlife biologists from tribal,
state and federal land management agencies along the
Colorado - New Mexico border was formed to address the
migration of mule deer and elk in the region. The
impetus for establishing this group was the
Jicarilla Tribes migration study mentioned above
In 1992 the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department received a
S6.000 grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for a
habitat project designed to increase forage for elk. The
RMEF is widely recognized for its contributions to land
management agencies conducting habitat improvement
project s .
III. Hunting and Fishing Opportunities/Income.
Hunt ing
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe's hunting program is divided into
two separate categories: hunts for tribal members and hunts for
non-member clients.
12
The tribal member hunts are designed to give tribal members
opportunities to hunt mule deer, elk. black bear, mountain lion,
turkey and small game, primarily for recreational purposes. All
permits are limited in number and tribal members must adhere to
specific season dates, bag limits and weapon restrictions. For
information on the total number of hunting permits issued to tribal
members in 1992 see Table 1.
The non-tribal hunting program is strictly a Trophy Hunting
operation. Limited numbers of permits are issued to clients on a
first-come or random drawing basis, depending on the hunt. Fees
charged for these permits is relatively high and the emphasis is on
harvesting trophy quality animals. All client hunters are required
to hire Jicarilla Apache guides. Table 2 lists the number of
client hunting permits sold in 1992.
Total number of hunting licenses issued and user-days of
hunting recreation provided in 1993 is summarized below.
Jicarilla Apache Reservation
L icense
Elk
Mule Deer
Black Bear
Mountain Lion
Turkey
Waterfowl
Non-Game
Total
Number Issued
654
140
33
IS
55
1 15
136
User-days
4
.578 -
1
,260
165
ISO
660
575
■>
.040
1151
9,458
In 1993 approximately 75'; of the total hunting licenses and
user-days were accounted for by tribal members. The remaining 2:3%
were accounted for by non-member client hunters.
Table 3 summarizes income derived from the sale of tribal
member hunting licenses on the Jicarilla Reservation in 1992.
Table 4 summarizes income from the sale of non-member client
hunting licenses in 1992.
-9-
13
Table 1. 1992
Tribal Member Hunting License Sales.
Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
License
Number
Aval lable
Spring Turkey
Sma 1 1 /Xon-game N'o
Bear
Mount a i n L ion
Archery Elk-Bull
Archery Elk - Cow
Rifle Bui i Elk
Cow Elk
Cow E 1 k( Du 1 ce Res . )
Mule Deer - General ~5
Mule Deer - Senior 2 5
Mule Deer - Elder No Limit
30
Limit
25
25
20
10
20
500
10
Number
Percent Change
So Id
From 1991
30
- 1 4%
136
+ 12%
6
-66%
9
-2 5%
20
-5 5%
S
-
20
-50%
294
+ S7%
10
+ 233%
+ 3 3%
+ 150%
-15%
-10-
14
Table 2. 1992 Non-Tribal Member Hunting License Sales,
Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
L icense
Number
Avai lab le
Number
Sold
Percent Change
From 1991
Reservation Hunts
Archery Bu 1 1 E 1 k 5
Early Bui 1 Rifle 35
Late Bui 1 Rifle 20
Cow Elk 100
Southern Cow Elk 50
Mountain Lion 25
Spring Turkey 25
Spring Bear 15
Fall Bear 10
Mule Deer 20
3
37
17
100
51
8
25
15
7
20
0%
-2%
-5%
+ 85%
-33%
0%
+ 7%
-4 6%
0%
Game Park Hunts
Bull Elk
Cow Elk
Spring Bear
30
5
17
30
5
-5%
-11%
0%
Compl imentarv
Bull Elk
Cow E 1 k
21
2
-36%
" S 3 /o
Raff les/Donat ions
Bull Elk
Cow Elk
1
23
-11
15
Table J. Summary of the 1992-93 tribal
revenues. Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
member hunting license
License
Sold
Price
Total
I ncome
Spring Turkey 30
Small/Non-Game 146
Bear 6
Mountain Lion 9
Archery Elk-Bow 20
Archery Elk-Cow 8
Rifle Elk-Bull 20
Cow Elk 294
Cow Elk (Dulce Res. ) 10
Mule Deer - Gen 75
Mule Deer - Senior 25
Mule Deer - Elder 20
S20.00
$10.00
S20.00
S20.00
SIOO.OO
S20.00
$100.00
$20.00
$100.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
$600
$1460
$120
$180
$2000
$160
$2000
$5880
$1000
$3750
0
0
Total
$17 . 150
-12-
16
Table 4. Summary of 1992-93 non-tribal member big game license
revenues. Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
L i cense
Sold
Price
Sales
Reservat ion
Archery Bu 1 1 Elk
3
Ear Iv Bui 1-Rif le
37
Late Bui 1-Rif le
17
Cow Elk
100
Southern Cow Elk
51
Mountain Lion
8
Spring Turkey
25
Spr ing Bear
15
Fal 1 Bear
7
Mu le Deer
20
Game Park Hunts
Bull Elk
17
Cow Elk
30
Spring Bear
5
$4000
$4000
$4000
$400
$300
$250
$75
$650
$650
$4,000
$4,000
$500
$650
$12
000
$148
000
$68
000
$40
000
$15
300
$2
000
$1
875
$9
750
S4
550
$80
000
$68
000
$15
000
$3
250
Total
$47';^, 725
Total Sales
1991-92
$492,500
Di f f erence
$14,775
-13-
17
Fi shing ■
Fishing licenses are sold to tribal members and non-members on
a unlimited basis. All reservation lakes and the Navajo River are
open to the public. In 1993 there were 2,855 fishing licenses sold
which generated approximately $15,000. There were appro.x imate ly
25,000 user-days recorded by fishermen on the Jicarilla Reservation
in 1992.
The fishing program on the Jicarilla represents the best
potential for improvement of habitat, expansion of recreational
opportunities and increased user-days and income. All of the
reservation's lakes are at relatively high altitude and require
aeration to prevent fish from dying during winter. However, the
lack of funds to bring electrical power to there lakes prevents the
tribe from installing aeration systems and fulfilling the potential
of these lakes to provide recreational fishing opportunities.
SUMMARY
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has a long history of managing its
fish and wildlife resources to provide recreational hunting and
fishing opportunities for Indians and non-indians alike. The
reservation has a well deserved reputation for producing
exceptional trophy mule deer and elk; a product of conservative,
professional management. The Jicarilla Tribe funded fish and
wildlife management programs entirely with tribal funds until 1982.
Since 1982 the tribe has received a small 638 contract to assist
the program, but today that contract amounts to only 20% of the
total program budget. In 1988 the Jicarilla Tribe recognized the
need for funding habitat improvement and research projects, and
established the Wildlife Management Account. Ten percent of all
license sales revenues are set aside annually in this account.
The Jicarilla Game and Fish Department has been a leader in
the region for research and management of mule deer and elk
populations, and their conservative harvest program for mule deer
is now being adopted by the State of New Mexico. The Tribe has
shown a degree of commitment to their fish and wildlife resources
and professionalism in the management of their resources equal to,
or above most state game and fish agencies. This has been without
the benefit of Pi t tman-Rober t son and Dinge 1 1 -Johnson monies that
are available to state wildlife agencies. The Jicarilla
Reservation already provides considerable hunting, fishing and
outdoor recreational opportunities to the general public. With
additional funding proposed under the Wildlife Enhancement Act. the
Tribe can expand these opportunities, improve habitats and ensure
the future of its fish and wildlife populations.
-14-
18
Mr. Velarde. Located along the continental divide in Northwest-
em New Mexico, the Jicarilla Apache Reservation enjoys a richness
of wildlife that would be regarded as a national treasure if it were
located in a national park or a national forest.
Because this treasure is located on Indian land, however, no one
but us seems to feel any responsibility to protect it.
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe takes this responsibility very seri-
ously.
Our culture and religion are tied very closely to the natural
world, and much of the wildlife in our region plays an important
part in our ceremonial life.
For more than 30 years, our tribe has been spending more than
half a million dollars per year for enhancement and management
of fish and wildlife resources on our reservation.
We have a resident population of more than 3,000 elk and 3,500
mule deer. Another 2,000 elk and 5,000 mule deer migrate into our
reservation fi-om higher elevations during the winter season.
More Boone and Crockett mule deer have been taken fi*om the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation since 1960 than from any comparable
area of North America.
Elk and mule deer support a residential population of 60 to 75
mountain lions throughout the reservation.
An estimated 150 black bears reside year round on the reserva-
tion. Wild turkeys are prospering on the reservation and may num-
ber 750 birds.
The most extensive complex of woodlands in Northern New Mex-
ico is located on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. Sinking Lake,
the largest natural lake in New Mexico is within the reservation
and is a unique breeding site for residential waterfowl as well as
significant resting sites along the Pacific flyway. Counts of ten
thousand to fift;een thousand water birds are not uncommon.
At least two active peregrine falcon nests can be found on the
reservation. Small numbers of Mexican spotted owl have been re-
ported on the Jicarilla reservation.
Golden eagles' nests on the reservation, and both golden and bald
eagles spend winter months on the reservation. Counts of 50 to 75
eagles each winter are common.
The Tribe's staff of 23 people for a reservation of some 850,000
acres is almost three times as many people as the State of New
Mexico devote to an area ten times the size of the reservation for
fish and game management.
In 1987, after examining and cross-examining the Tribe's Game
and Fish Department personnel in discovery proceedings, the State
of New Mexico conceded that the Tribe has a far more intensive
wildlife management program for the reservation than any other
state has to offer.
The Tribe was instrumental, in 1989, to estabUsh the San Juan
Interstate Wildlife Working Group, composed of wildlife biologists
fi-om state, tribal and federal wildHfe management agencies along
the Colorado-New Mexico border.
In short, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has taken a leadership role
in game and fish management for a significant portion of the Rocky
Mountain region for both New Mexico and Colorado, but has re-
19
ceived none of the assistance that both states receive from the Fed-
eral Government.
We are convinced that if Congress were considering the Dingell-
Johnson and Pittman-Robertson legislation today, Congress would
make some provision for tribes to participate in those programs.
We urge this committee not to allow that original oversight to be-
come an excuse for failing to correct an obvious injustice.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Velarde follows:]
20
THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE
///////////
p. O, aOX 607 • DULCE. NEW MEXICO 87326.0507
VVVV^^V^^^'v
TESTIMONY OF VICE PRESIDENT VELARDE
BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
February 18, 1993
Oversight Hearing
Indian Fish and Wildlife Management and Enhancement
Name and Capacity of Witness:
Wainwright Velarde
Vice President, Jicarilla Apache Tribe
TESTIMONY
Chairman Richardson and Members of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs:
My name is Wainwright Velarde. I am the Vice-President of the Jicarilla Apache
Tribe. With me today is Rudy Velarde, the Assistant Director of the Jicarilla Apache
Game and Fish Department.
Fish and Wildlife Management by Indian Tribes is a topic of great importance to
my Tribe, and I am honored to be here today to discuss these issues with this
subcommittee. I will make some brief remarks, and then Rudy Velarde and I will respond
to any questions from the subcommittee. We have provided the subcommittee copies of
a more lengthy written statement summarizing the fish and wildlife management programs
of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe.
The Jicarilla Apache Reservation is located in Northern New Mexico, within the
congressional district of the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Richardson.
The Reservation consists of over 830,000 acres of land, all of which is held in trust
for the Tribe. Unlike many other Tribes, we do not have large tracts of non-Indian land
within our Reservation. Because of this solid land base, our Tribal Government is able to
manage our natural resources effectively, without the state trying to impose its own laws
and regulations on non-Indian lands within the reservation.
21
Testimony of Wainwright Velarde
House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Oversight Hearing-Indian Fish and Wildlife Management & Enhancement
February 18, 1993
Page 2
The Reservation population is approximately 3000, of whom 2800 are members of
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. The relatively small number of non-members residing on the
Reservation strengthens the ability of the Tribal Government to manage our resources
effectively.
Off-reservation hunting and fishing rights are an important issue for many of the
Indian tribes, but these are not issues for our Tribe. The treaty and executive orders
estabhshing our reservation did not preserve the hunting and fishing rights the Tribe held
in the larger area we occupied before the reservation was established. Our rights to
manage fish and wildlife are confined to the boundaries of the Reservation.
Within those boundaries, the Tribe has exclusive authority to manage fish and
wildlife. The state of New Mexico has occasionally attempted to regulate hunting and
fishing on our Reservation, but we have gone to federal court to stop that interference with
our sovereignty, and the federal court has supported our position.
Our Reservation is rich in natural resources, including oil and gas, timber, good
grazing lands, as well as fish and wildlife. We manage those different resources so that we
are able to develop and enjoy each of them without causing unnecessary impacts on the
environment or on other natural resources.
For example, the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is a significant producer of natural
gas. At the same time, our Reservation has been known for many decades as one of the
best areas in the United States for trophy hunting of mule deer and elk. We also have
significant populations of bear, turkey and other game and non-game wildlife. In addition,
the lakes and streams within the Reservation provide valuable habitat areas for fish and
waterfowl.
From this brief description of our Reservation and our Tribe, it is clear that the
Jicarilla Apaches have been blessed with great natural resources. Still, it is important for
this subcommittee to understand that we have had to work hard and to devote substantial
amounts of the Tribe's income to protect and manage those natural resources. Specifically
in the area of wildlife management, the Tribe has received very little assistance, financial
or technical, from the United States or from the state of New Mexico.
The Tribe established its own Game and Fish Department in 1959. The Department
now consists of 23 full time employees, including a professional wildlife biologist, three
biological technicians and 9 individuals working full time in enforcement of the Tribe's
Game and Fish Code.
22
Testimony of Wainwright Velarde
House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Oversight Hearing-Indian Fish and Wildlife Management & Enhancement
February 18, 1993
Page 3
These numbers may appear small to those of you who are not familiar with our
Reservation or with northern New Mexico. For comparison, the Game and Fish
Department of the state of New Mexico has 7 law enforcement officers and 1 biologist for
the entire northwest quarter of the state outside of Indian lands. That area is about ten
times the size of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation.
I mention these figures to show that our Tribe takes fish and wildlife management
very seriously, and we are willing to put the necessary resources into an effective program.
Our Game and Fish Department is fully qualified to conduct surveys and monitoring
under the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. We review and comment on
environmental assessments prepared for timber sales and oil and gas development. We
have conducted radio telemetry studies to determine migration patterns of elk and mule
deer. Those studies have produced valuable data that was not known to the game and fish
departments of New Mexico or Colorado.
It is also important for this subcommittee to know that our Game and Fish
Department has cooperated with other tribes, the neighboring states and the federal
government on issues arising from game and fish management. We were very active in
initiating and establishing the San Juan Interstate Wildlife Working Group. That group has
representatives from the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, the Southern Ute Tribe, the US Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the states of Colorado and New Mexico.
This group meets periodically to share information and coordinate management of
migratory big game herds that pass through each jurisdiction.
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has a proven record of conservative and scientifically-
based game management. For example, in 1987 our Game and Fish Department was
concerned about the declining populations of mule deer. The state of New Mexico was
permitting unlimited deer hunting in the areas surrounding our Reservation. We tried to
get the state to limit the number of deer hunting permits for state-controlled hunts in
surrounding lands. The state refused, because of the desire to continue getting revenue
from unlimited permits sales. The Tribe then took the drastic step of completely
prohibiting deer hunting within the Reservation for a three year period. This was a difficult
decision for the Tribal Council, because deer hunting is a very important part of our
culture. But the Council accepted the scientific evidence developed by our Game and
Fish Department. At the end of the three year ban, we restored deer hunting on a very
limited basis. As a direct result of our actions banning all deer hunting, the deer
populations improved significantly. In addition, in 1992 the state Game and Fish
department finally agreed to limit deer hunting on the lands surrounding our Reservation.
We are pleased that the state has finally agreed to the conservative management policies
for the deer herd first proposed and implemented by the Tribe.
23
Testimony of Wainwright Velarde
House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Oversight Hearing-Indian Fish and Wildhfe Management & Enhancement
February 18, 1993
Page 4
We are very proud of our Game and Fish Department and the high professional
standards it has achieved. This subcommittee needs to know that this level of success has
not been inexpensive. The annual budget for the Game and Fish Department is
approximately $640,000. Of that total, $133,000 comes from a PL 638 contract with the
BIA. The remaining $507,000 comes from Tribal funds. Tribal funds cover 79% of the cost
of operating the Game and Fish Department.
We receive no funds from the state of New Mexico and no funds from the United
States other than the PL 638 contract. We receive no money from the federal wildlife and
fish restoration funds. We receive no technical assistance from the BIA or the US Fish and
Wildhfe Service.
In part because outside funding was not available to the Tribe, we created a special
habitat fund to provide money for habitat improvement projects. 10% of the gross revenue
from the sale of tribal fishing and hunting licenses is deposited in that habitat fund. The
balance of the revenue from license sales goes into the general fund of the Tribe, to pay
for the many other governmental services we provide within the Reservation.
We have spent scarce tribal revenues on the Game and Fish Department because
we recognize the importance of proper management of fish and wildlife resources. But it
is becoming increasingly difficult to pay for these programs without the kind of federal
financial assistance that is available to all the states and territories. The Indian tribes are
the only governments in the federal system who do not share in the federal wildlife and fish
restoration funds. We believe this situation is grossly unfair, and must be corrected.
The written materials submitted to the subcommittee provide additional details on
our Game and Fish Department.
Mr. Velarde and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
24
Mr. Richardson. Ms. Notah.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA NOTAH
Ms. NOTAH. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Gloria Notah. I'm a wildlife manager with the Navajo
Nation's Department of Fish and Wildlife.
I'm presenting testimony this morning on behalf of President Pe-
terson Zah and the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation appreciates this opportunity to provide our
concerns regarding Indian management of fish and wildlife pro-
grams on tribal lands.
We commend the Subcommittee and the House Natural Re-
sources Committee for addressing this issue.
The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the Unit-
ed States, consisting of approximately 18 milhon acres of land
which spans into the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.
Navajo Nation lands contain valuable and critical habitat for nu-
merous species of fish and wildlife.
In addition, there are 9 federally listed threatened and endan-
gered species found on Navajo Nation lands.
In 1956, the Navajo Nation created the Department of Fish and
Wildlife to manage the fish and wildlife resources on Navajo lands
for the benefit of present and future generations.
Subsequently, fish and wildUfe management codes were estab-
lished for the protection and enhancement of Navajo fish and wild-
life resources.
Although the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife manages
to carry out its management responsibilities, the Department has
confi-onted numerous obstacles in advancing this mandate.
First and foremost is the lack of statutory authorization for In-
dian tribes, including the Navajo Nation to participate in and re-
ceive funding firom any Federal programs.
The Navajo Nation is unable to participate in Federal legislation,
such as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act,
which is also known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
Act, £ind also the Endangered Species Act.
The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Act assess excise
taxes on fishing and hunting supplies and motor boat fuel. This Act
generates over $400 million annually, and provides fiinding to all
50 states and U.S. territories.
However, this measure does not allow for Indian tribes, including
the Navajo Nation, to participate in this Federal aid program.
Indian tribes should be allowed to participate in Pittman-Robert-
son and Dingell-Johnson since tribal members contribute signifi-
cantly to these programs when they purchase taxed hunting and
fishing supplies.
Furthermore, Indian tribes, including the Navajo Nation, contrib-
ute significantly to meeting the national demand for hunting and
fishing opportunities.
The Navajo Nation has a developed Fish and Wildlife manage-
ment program, which provides recreational fishing and hunting to
the demand of the general public, Indian and non-Indian alike.
25
Therefore, we should be afforded the same benefits given to
states and territories under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-John-
son.
Indian tribes are also excluded fi*om receiving direct Federal
funding under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Only states
are authorized and funded to conduct inventories and develop man-
agement plans for threatened and endangered species.
Indian tribes must apply to states to receive this funding. There
needs to be an avenue in place where tribes can receive Section 6
fimding directly fi*om the Federal Government, rather than
through the states.
In 1977, the Navajo Nation enacted its own Endangered Species
Code. This code protects not only federally Usted threatened and
endangered species, but also threatened and endangered species
that are indigenous to the Navajo Nation.
There's a demand for individual threatened and endangered spe-
cies management plans on the Navajo that would address critical
factors that are not currently addressed by the existing federal
threatened and endangered species management plans and guide-
lines.
Those critical factors that are of concern to the Navajo Nation
are cultural and traditional beliefs, economic feasibility, and eco-
nomic development and land use priorities.
Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act must be amended to au-
thorize tribes to receive funds directly for development of threat-
ened and endangered species management plans.
An additional obstacle facing the Navajo Nation in carrying out
its management responsibilities is the continual decrease in fund-
ing allocations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs through the In-
dian Self Determination Act, also known as Public Law 93-638.
In 1991, the Department contracted the total fish and wildlife re-
sponsibilities fi*om the Bureau. This included three wildlife biolo-
gist positions.
As a result of the continual decrease in funding, that's indicated
in Attachment A of our written testimony, the Department lost 2
of the 3 wildlife biologist positions at the end of 1992.
In 1993, the Department renegotiated with the Bureau and man-
aged to increase the allocation slightly. However, this amount is
still grossly inadequate for the Department to manage the Navajo
Nation's vast fish and wildlife resources.
A continued lack of P.L. 93-638 funding demonstrates the BIA's
failure to uphold its trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation in the
management of fish and wildlife resources.
This lack of responsibility has forced the Navajo Nation to begin
seeking alternative funding sources in other federal programs and
the private sector.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of the Navajo Nation follows:]
26
THE
NAVAJO
NATION
p. O. DRAWER 308 • WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515 • (602) 871-6352-55 .
PETERSON ZAH MARSHALL PLUUMER
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
TESTIMONY OF THE
NAVAJO NATION
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
ON
THE OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN MANAGEMENT
OF TRIBAL FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Navajo Nation
appreciates this opportunity to provide our concerns regarding tribal management of
tribal fisheries and wildlife programs. We commend this Subcommittee and the House
Natural Resources Committee for holding this oversight hearing.
The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States,
consisting of approximately 1 7 million acres which spans into the states of Arizona,
New Mexico and Utah - - similar in size to the state of West Virginia. Navajo lands
vary from mountains, to forests, to lakes and streams, to the well known desert dry
red rock. These lands contain valuable and critical habitat for numerous species of
fish and wildlife such as rainbow trout, brown trout, largemouth bass, numerous small
game species, pronghorn antelope, black bear, mule deer, and a small population of
27
elk and numerous furbearer and waterfowl species. There are nine federally listed
threatened and endangered species found on the Navajo Nation, including an
endangered fish located on the San Juan River (Ptvchocheilus lucuis) and the
Humpback Chub.
In 1 956, the Navajo Nation created the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife
to manage the fish and wildlife resources on Navajo lands for the benefit of our
present and future generations. Presently, the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife
consist of four sections: Wildlife Law Enforcement; Management/Research; Natural
Heritage; and, Animal Damage Control. The Wildlife Enforcement section is
responsible for the enforcement of all fish and wildlife laws and regulations. The
Management/Research section evaluates, monitors, manages and researches certain
populations of small and big game, furbearers and game fish. The Natural Heritage
section is responsible for the collection, management and dissemination of biological
and ecological information on threatened and endangered species and communities.
It is the only program of its type in the United States on an Indian reservation. The
Animal Damage Control section oversees the alleviation of wildlife damage to
agricultural resources such as crops and livestock. There are approximately thirty
professional staff in the four sections of the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Twenty staff members are located in the central office in Window Rock, Arizona, and
ten staff members are located in the field. Each person is charged with overseeing
the Navajo Nation's vast land, habitat and species resources.
The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife has confronted numerous obstacles
in carrying out its responsibilities. Foremost is the lack of statutory authorization for
28
Indian tribes to participate in and receive funding from many federal programs.
Another real problem is the competition for scare federal dollars and a lower priority
given to fish and wildlife versus human needs which are so great.
LACK OF TRIBAL PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife is constrained in efforts to enhance
it's fish and wildlife programs by the inability of the Navajo Nation to participate in
federal legislation such as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act,
otherwise known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Act (PR/DJ) and from
the Endangered Species Act. These two acts are readily available to fund off
reservation activities, but do not allow for tribal participation.
Pittman-Robertson and Dinaell-Johnson Act (PR/DJ)
The PR/DJ Act assess excise taxes on fishing and hunting supplies and motor
boat fuel. The PR/DJ generates over $400 million annually and provides funding to
all 50 states and United States territories for a wide variety of recreational fisheries
and wildlife enhancement projects. However, this measure does not allow for Indian
tribes, including the Navajo Nation, to participate in this federal aid program. Tribes
should be able to participate in PR/DJ since tribal members contribute significantly to
these programs when they purchase taxed hunting and fishing supplies. Furthermore,
the national demand for hunting and fishing expeditions on tribal lands by tribal and
non-tribal members is immense. The Navajo Nation, through it's Department of Fish
and Wildlife has met such requests by issuing approximately 2,100 big game permits
in 1991-1992. Sixty-six percent were issued to tribal members and 34 percent to
29
non-tribal members. In 1991, approximately 11.726 fishing and small game permits
were issued. Of this total, 28 percent were issued to tribal members, 13 percent to
non-tribal members and the remaining 59 percent was unknown. The Navajo Nation,
like many other tribes, has a developed fish and wildlife management program which
provides recreational fishing and hunting to the demand of the general public, Indian
and non-Indian. Since Indian tribes contribute significantly to federal aid programs and
meet the national hunting and fishing demand, they should be afforded the same
benefits given to states and territories under PR/DJ.
Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act
Indian tribes are also excluded from receiving direct federal funding for wildlife
management under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Only states are
authorized and funded to conduct inventories and develop management plans for
endangered species. Indian tribes must apply to states to receive such funding. Since
states typically do not receive additional administrative overhead costs this is either
assumed by the state or passed on to the tribe. This disincentive means tribes usually
receive little or no Section 6 funding from the states. Furthermore, the interests of
the state may be different than the tribe or, states may encroach onto the tribe's land.
As to the latter, for example, the endangered fish (Ptvchocheilus iucuig) located in the
San Juan River on the Navajo Nation is currently the subject of an extensive research
program by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish which receives substantial
Section 6 funding. The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife receives no such
funding for the study and management of this species whose prime habitat is located
68-141 - 93
30
in the Navajo Nation. The interest of the Navajo Nation nnust include our own
independent studies and evaluation. Otherwise we are dependent on the state or
outsiders as to the status of our own tribal species.
Also, the guidelines under the Endangered Species Act for the nnanagement of
threatened and endangered species are not site specific and do not address the
conditions found on nnany Indian reservations. In 1977, the Navajo Nation enacted
it's own endangered species code in an effort to address the particular conditions of
threatened and endangered species indigenous to the Navajo reservation, including
other federally listed species. However, funding is needed to further develop
individual species management plans which recognizes those unique factors found on
the Navajo reservation. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act must be amended
to authorize tribes to receive funds directly for development of their threatened and
endangered species management plans.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Legislation should also redress the current inequities existing in federal funding
of outdoor recreation programs under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965
(LWCA). The LWCA is a fund, drawn primarily from federal offshore oil and gas
revenues, that is to be used towards the development of federal and state outdoor
recreational resources and facilities. As is the case with federal aid programs for fish
and wildlife restoration programs, tribes are systematically excluded from receiving
funding under LWCA. Congress should amend the Act to make tribes eligible to
receive direct federal funding for the development and/or restoration of tribal
31
recreational facilities and resources on a basis equal to that of the federal government
and the 50 states.
DECREASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING
A portion of the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife's
Management/Research section and all of the Wildlife Law Enforcement section are
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) through the Indian Self Determination Act
(Public Law 93-638). Funding for these sections has continually decreased over the
past four years. (See Attachment A) In 1990, the Navajo Department of Fish and
Wildlife's "638 contract" allocation was $332,800.00. In 1991, this contract
allocation totalled $260,800.00. In 1 991 , the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife
contracted the total fish and wildlife responsibilities from BIA. This included three
wildlife biologist positions. In 1992, the contract's total allocation dropped to
$251,019.00 which was inadequate to fund all programs and activities under the P.L.
93-638 contract. As a result of this continual decrease in funding, the Navajo
Department of Fish and Wildlife lost two of the three contracted wildlife biologist
positions at the end of 1992. In 1993, the original allocation to the Department was
$258,433.00, which would have resulted in large cutbacks in programs and services;
however, the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife renegotiated with the BIA and
received an additional $25,670. Although funding was slightly increased in 1993,
this amount is still grossly inadequate for the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife
to properly evaluate and monitor the Navajo Nation's fish and wildlife resources
spanning into three states.
6
32
The current funding level of the Wildlife Law Enforcement section, which is
completely funded under a P.L. 93-638 contract, is also insufficient. This section
consists of five Wildlife Conservation Officers who must cover the entire Navajo
reservation. These officers are responsible for enforcing tribal fish and wildlife laws
and regulations and certain federal wildlife laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments
of 1 981 , the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Non-Indian
violators cited by these officers are prosecuted by the United States District Courts.
Any fines assessed by the United States District Courts are reinvested in the Navajo
Nation but remain with the federal government. Since the Navajo Nation Department
of Fish and Wildlife does not receive sufficient "638" funding, it could utilize the
assessed fines as an additional source of funding to effectuate its wildlife enforcement
responsibilities.
The continued lack of P.L. 93-638 funding demonstrates of the BIA's failure to
uphold it's trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation in the management of fish and
wildlife resources. This lack of responsibility has forced the Navajo Nation to begin
seeking alternative funding sources in other federal programs and the private sector.
TOWARDS TRIBAL SELF-MANAGEMENT
The Navajo Nation, like many other Indian tribes, has the technical expertise
and experience to manage it's own fish and wildlife resources. Also, it is increasingly
being recognized by the courts that tribes, as sovereign governments, have the right
to self-manage these resources. In 1 983, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Circuit
stating the State of New Mexico could not enforce its wildlife management laws
33
within the exterior boundaries of the Mescalero Apache Nation. Subsequent cases
involving the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe
have reaffirmed this position. In all these cases, the overriding factor in favor of the
tribes was their experience and expertise in managing their wildlife resources. In
observation of these facts, the Governor of New Mexico appointed in 1991 the
Wildlife Working Group for cooperative management between the State and local
Indian tribes. Last month, the State officially endorsed the Wildlife Working Group.
The Navajo Nation looks forward to realizing the potential of this collaborative effort.
CONCLUSION
In sum, remedial legislation is urgently needed (1) to recognize the government-
to-government relationship that exists between tribes and the federal government, by
extending existing federal aid programs to tribes, and (2) to fulfill the federal
government's trust responsibility to tribes by ensuring that they have the wherewithal
to exercise their sovereign rights over their lands and resources.
Tribal self-determination must mean that tribes have the authority and
sophistication to assume exclusive management of fish and wildlife resources on their
lands. The greatest prohibitions are lack of statutory authorizations in significant
federal acts and the lower priority of fish and wildlife in relation to other needs. The
Navajo Nation urges this Subcommittee to overcome these two barriers by amending
such federal laws and supporting increased funding as we have stated earlier. The
Navajo Nation looks forward to working with this Subcommittee towards those goals.
8
34
AnACHMENT A
KfV>JO yiBH MTO WILDLIfH DEP^THEMT
rUXDZMQ HISTORY 7011
BtniZAO 07 IMDXMI XTFAIRfi 7.L.93-OB COHTRACT
35
Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Ms. Notah.
I'd like to see if my colleague has any questions.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess my questions would be more simply for clarification.
Do the agencies— for instance, Fish and Wildlife Service — partici-
pate in the programs that you speak of?
Ms. Notah. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
the programs that I'm specifically referring to are programs that
are only open to state participation.
The point I think is that, at least ft-om the Navajo point of view,
that we have the same capabihties and the same technical exper-
tise as state fish and game departments in managing our fish and
wildlife resources. And therefore, we feel that we have the right to
compete for these resources on the same level as a state does.
Mr. Thomas. But my question is, do you now get assistance fi-om
federal agencies in terms of the management of wildlife?
Ms. Notah. At least fi-om the Navajo standpoint, the only federal
assistance that we receive right now is through our Bureau of In-
dian Affairs.
Mr. Thomas. I see.
And who's eligible to utiUze these fish and wildlife opportunities?
Ms. Notah. We provide these opportunities both for tribal mem-
bers and non- tribal members.
Mr. Thomas. And there are non-tribal members who pay licenses
to participate on the tribe?
Ms. Notah. But tribal members and non-tribal members pay to
participate in these opportunities.
Mr. Thomas. There are, of course, Pittman funds and others, but
as I recall, our state game and fish is largely funded by hcense
fees.
Is that true with you?
Ms. Notah. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Thomas. So as I understand it, your main interest is having
an opportunity to participate in the Pittman funds and those fees?
Ms. Notah. That's correct.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Richardson. The Chair recognizes the gentleman fi'om
South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
somewhat late this morning. We had a whip meeting going on out-
lining the legislative agenda for the remainder of this week and
next week, and as well, I'm going to have to leave very soon for
a caucus going on involving a subcommittee chairmanship that I'm
going to be assuming.
So I regret that I have all of these things going on at the same
time, because this is a critically important hearing going on today,
and I commend you for your leadership in putting this together.
I'm going to be reviewing the written testimony because I think
it is vitally important.
I have no questions here at this point.
However, I would like to extend a special welcome to Mr. Fred
DuBray who is the Coordinator of Administration for Native Amer-
ican Bison Enhancement Project at Cheyenne River in South Da-
kota.
36
And I know that his testimony will be valuable in the overall
work of this committee this morning.
So, again, I'm looking forward to reviewing all of the testimony
and working with my staff in that regard.
And I apologize for having to leave here very soon now.
Mr. Richardson. I thank the gentleman from South Dakota for
his statement, and we recognize lus many responsibilities.
Let me ask our two witnesses, what would you advise the Bu-
reau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, and this
subcommittee, to do in terms of carrying out the trust responsibil-
ities to Indian tribes for the protection of tribal fish and wildlife re-
sources?
In other words, what should we do to carry out our trust respon-
sibilities to protect your fish and wildhfe resources?
What would you like us to do that is not being done?
Mr. Velarde. Well, with the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, I think as
far as the Secretary is concerned with the Interior Department, it
should be recognized and, again, on three levels, I think.
One is on the secretarial level. The Tribe would like to be recog-
nized and be a part of this Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
bill together, also.
We would also like the President to have an order designating
such a proclamation or recognition of our sovereignty to be able to
regulate and manage our own game and fish.
And then on a legislative level, we would like to do likewise with
the overall management of our reservations. Initiate some type of
sovereignty bill to support those kinds of things.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Ms. Notah?
Ms. Notah. Mr. Chairman, remedial legislation is urgently need-
ed to recognize the govemment-to-govemment relationship that ex-
ists between tribes and the federal government, by extending exist-
ing federal aid programs to tribes.
And to fulfill the federal government's trust responsibility to
tribes by ensuring they have the right to exercise their sovereign
rights over their lands and resources.
One of the major problems I think is that fish and wildlife mat-
ters are on a lower priority level in terms of other human needs.
That needs to be increased.
Mr. Richardson. Yes, did you want to add to this?
Mr. Rudy Velarde. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
My name is Rudy Velarde, and I would like to suggest that the
BLA consider the tribes individually because we are, each tribe, all
different.
For example, rather than address us with a blanket type of a pol-
icy, if you would consider each tribe individually, because we are
individuals, just by the mere fact of population, geography and the
size and location of tribes.
Even regarding the economic development of different tribes,
we're all different. So if the BIA tries to address us with a general
type of a rule, it really doesn't help most of us.
But if they could consider us specifically, then they could accom-
plish more of their goals.
Thank you very much.
37
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Velarde, you mentioned the extensive wild-
life data collection that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe undertakes.
Are there similar types of efforts within the BIA that they are
initiating, or would you call yours unique?
Mr. Rudy Velarde. No, there's no information like this in exist-
ence. To my knowledge, we're the only ones that have this informa-
tion. It costs the Tribe a lot of money to generate this information,
and we're very proud to have this information.
And if anybody wants additional information, we're the main au-
thority on what we're saying here, and we are recognized by the
state courts and other hunting organizations throughout the Unit-
ed States.
For example, the big game shows and other big game organiza-
tions, they're the ones — if you go over there and you mention
Jicarilla, they know exactly where we're at and what we can
produce.
Thank you.
Mr. Richardson. Of course, the Jicarilla's know this, but when-
ever members of Congress ask me where is the ideal place for rec-
reational hunting, they mention the Jicarilla Apaches. I think you
have a luiique program there.
Mr. Rudy Velarde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through the years, we also have several articles in national mag-
azines with regard to our reservation, so we're pretty well recog-
nized as far as hunting and fishing programs that we have.
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
I'm going to recognize my colleague.
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, clarification.
You speak of the sovereignty and that sort of business.
Is there a confusion or an overlapping of jurisdiction with respect
to state game and fish operations and fish and wildlife?
Is there a question about who has the authority to manage wild-
Ufe on your reservation?
Ms. NOTAH. Representative Thomas, if I may, I'd like to field
that question.
I don't think there's a confusion about who has the right to man-
age these resources, at least with the Navajo it's fairly well clear
that the Navajo Nation does have that responsibility for their own
resources.
In many instances, we are doing just as much, or even much
more than what the states are doing in terms of
Mr. Thomas. So it's not a conflict of jurisdiction generally?
Ms. NOTAH. No, it's not.
Mr. Thomas. It's really money. Is that it?
Ms. NOTAH. It's primarily funding.
Mr. Thomas. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Richardson. I thank my colleague.
Before I ask the Representative of American Samoa to chair the
next panel, because I too, like Mr. Johnson, must leave because I
have to go to the White House for a session with the Chief Execu-
tive, but I will return.
I would like to thank this group of witnesses.
38
I'd like to have the Honorable Thomas Maulson, the Chairman
of Lac du Flambeau Tribe in Wisconsin come up to the table. He
will be accompanied by Larry Wawronowicz, Director of the Natu-
ral Resources Department. In addition to Hon. Maulson, I'd like
Mr. James Schlender, Executive Administrator for Great Lakes In-
dian Fish and Wildlife Commission from Odanah, Wisconsin. Mr.
Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American Fish and Wild-
hfe Society, Broomfield, Colorado. Mr. Fred DuBray, Coordinator,
Administration for Native American Bison Enhancement Project,
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Americsin Samoa and
asks him to come and assume the Chair.
Mr. Maulson. Mr. Chairman, before you go
[Mr. Maulson distributing gifts.]
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the gift.
Do you wish me to pass it on to the President?
Mr. Maulson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Richardson. I think there's some tobacco taxes in his pack-
ages. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [presiding] . First of all, I want to express, al-
though in his absence, my appreciation for the outstanding leader-
ship that the gentleman from New Mexico has imdertaken, and not
only for convincing the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Mem-
ber of the Committee on Natural Resources that this is a very his-
torical moment in the activities of the Committee on Natural Re-
sources, that this is the first time that we have now established,
in a long time, a specific subcommittee to handle Native American
issues.
I think we've come a long way, and I want to express that feeling
for the record, especially to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Bill Richardson, for his initiative and for his leadership in accom-
plishing this task. And now we have a subcommittee to address the
issues and the needs of our Native American community through-
out the country.
'I also want to express my personal thanks for the gift that has
been presented here this morning.
It's ironic that our Native Americans had originally used tobacco
for purposes of a very spiritual ceremony among Native Americans,
and that is when the peace pipe is passed. And the purpose of the
smoke is to enhance and to give some sense of unity spiritually
among the elders when they meet.
And then when the Europeans got hold of it, they took it in a
very different context. Now we're having very serious problems in
the health, not only of the members of our country, but certainly
throughout the world.
But the irony of it all is that I think we've imderstood, also from
the Native Americans, that tobacco was used to cure the ills of ani-
mals.
But it's ironic that we now have problems of cigarette smoking
in our coiuitry in a way that was never intended by the originsQ
users of tobacco; it was for a spiritual ceremony.
39
So I do accept, with gratitude, the gentleman's gift, and it will
be placed prominently in my office. And maybe when we have a
peace pipe ceremony, you'll come and smoke with us in my office.
I want to thank the gentleman for this gift.
I think, without question, we definitely do have some very seri-
ous problems, and this issue was posed to Secretary Babbitt about
the need of our Native American community and the fish and wild-
hfe, their needs, not only on reservations but the relationship that
we have with the federal government, whether it be by regulation
or by law.
I don't know. Seemingly, there seems to be some confusion or
just lack of any real sense of cooperation with the needs of our Na-
tive American commimity.
So with that in mind, I want to proceed now and to hear fi'om
the testimonies of our friends here fi-om Wisconsin and Colorado
and fi*om South Dakota.
And, so, Mr. Maulson, would you like to proceed?
PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. THOMAS MAULSON, CHAIRMAN,
LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA IN-
DIANS, WISCONSIN, ACCOMPANIED BY LARRY
WAWRONOWICZ, DIRECTOR, CHIPPEWA NATURAL RE-
SOURCES DEPARTMENT; JAMES H. SCHLENDER, EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR, THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILD-
LIFE COMMISSION, ODANAH, WI; KEN POYNTER, MEMBER,
PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE OF MAINE, AND ACTING EXECU-
TIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCI-
ETY, BROOMFIELD, CO; AND FRED DUBRAY, COORDINATOR,
ADMINISTRATION FOR NATIVE AMERICAN BISON ENHANCE-
MENT PROJECT, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, EAGLE
BUTTE, SD, AND PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPER-
ATIVE
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS MAULSON
Mr. Maulson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd like to address this body and identify my Ojibwa
name is Badawiiasch and I come fi-om Wasagoning. Wasagoning is
known as Lac Du Flambeau in the English context. I'm an Ojibwa.
I am the Chairman of the Lac Du Flambeau Band, and my reserva-
tion is located in the north central part of Wisconsin, many hours
from here.
It is approximately 144 square miles, 98,000 acres of land, in-
cluding 150 lakes, 34 miles of creeks and rivers and streams, en-
riched with hunting, fishing and all these things that were echoed
by the prior people here.
I know you have our testimony, and I'd like to just oversee it
very hghtly. I hope that you will take that time because of the to-
bacco that we've brought here today to you, to take a lot of time
and listen, and see what Indian people are about today.
We have a major struggle to control the resources on our reserva-
tion, my reservation, my people. Approximately 51 percent of our
reservation is owned by non- Indian people.
Today, we have an enhancement project going on in reference to
making sure that our fish are plentiful for our people. But yet, the
40
State of Wisconsin does not return any type of revenues to my tribe
in reference to m£iking our hatchery operations go.
I feel we have the state-of-the-art hatchery, but yet it was built
in the 1936 era. It is old, but yet it is fundamental, and continu-
ously doing the things that we ask it to do.
I asked the legislation to state clearly the federal responsibilities
to the tribes in references to the resources on reservation.
We need legislative support of all its natural resource programs,
because we are the stewards of the last 500 years for the people
that put their foot on this island. We need that support from you
legislators, as nation to nation. It's important that we get that type
of support.
We have to continuously identify the problems that we do have.
We have many non-native people living within the confines of my
reservation, as I stated earlier, but yet no dollars coming to my
tribe in order to support its natural endeavor to exist as Ojibwa or
Anishinabe people.
We have many white state jurisdictional issues on my reserva-
tion which definitely cause problems in reference to the use of their
resources on my reservation.
We have many test cases out there, may it be the Montana case
that deals with non- Indian people in reference to a jurisdiction.
The State of Wisconsin has co-jurisdiction on my reservation also,
but once again without putting any type of dollars in.
We asked to support the fact that we need also, as you heard
echoed here this morning, Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
dollars. We need those dollars to exist.
We don't need them to rob Peter to pay Paul, or use them to
switch one way or the other. We need those additional dollars.
We have an Indian fish hatchery that deals with roughly over 50
million walleye eggs annually, and millions of mussel eggs annu-
ally that are being taken from our hatcheries and used in our res-
ervation waters.
We have a reservation that has approximately 158 named lakes
and many small lakes, and yet we have no control. Ninety-five per-
cent of those bodies of water are used by the non-Indian people
without any type of control by tribal government.
But yet we continue to exist under these conditions. Fishing and
hunting rights are essential to my people back home.
So I know we have many items that are far greater than the
summary that I have before me, that's before you, to digest. And
I hope this committee will take a hard look at how it's going to im-
pact Indian people across this country.
We have been promised many things as Indian tribes, and yet
gained little.
So I hope that we can continue to create a better dialogue, Mr.
Chairman. So I'm going to leave it that way.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Maulson follows:]
41
TESTIMONY OF THE LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR
CHIPPEWA INDIANS
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Tom Maulson, Chairman of the
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Wisconsin. I am pleased to
have the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Band to express our support for the
enactment of legislation recognizing the tribal right to manage and regulate fish and wildlife
resources and the federal obligation, under the trust responsibility, to assist the tribes in
fulfilling their objectives in this vital area. I also appreciate the opportunity to share with
you several specific concerns which the Band would suggest be considered for inclusion in
the legislation.
Let me begin by telling you something about our Reservation and our natural
resources program.
The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is located in north central Wisconsin --
described by many as the "Northwoods." The Reservation is approximately 98,000 acres, and
includes 158 lakes, 34 miles of creeks, rivers and streams (a total of 20,000 surface acres of
waters), 55,000 acres of forested land, and 15,000 acres of wetlands. As this description
suggests, the Reservation ecosystem is very diverse and supports many upland and lowland
species of animals and plants. Our waters, lands, woods and skies brim with walleye,
muskellunge, smallmouth bass, white tail deer, black bear, eagles, waterfowl, grouse,
songbirds, aspen, sugar maple, evergreens, and wild rice.
The role of these resources in our culture remains the same as it has been from time
immemorial. Band members rely on the Reservation's natural resources for subsistence,
cultural, religious, medicinal and economic purposes. It is safe to say that the Reservation
natural resources are one of our greatest assets, second only to our children.
Non-Indians also use the Reservation's natural resources. Indeed, since the Lac du
Flambeau Indian Reservation is a "checkerboard" reservation, there are many non-Indian
people who own land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. These individuals -
- as well as many non-Indians who live off the Reservation - use our lands and waters to
hunt, fish, boat, hike, and for other recreational purposes. Indeed, 95% of the fishing done
on the Reservation is done by non-Indians.
The Band manages the Reservation's natural resources itself. This is done pursuant
to the Band's Constitution, which provides that the tribal government has the constitutional
responsibility to protect, conserve, and enhance the Reservation's natural resources for
present and future generations. In fulfillment of this responsibility, the Lac du Flambeau
Band has been operating the Tribal Natural Resources Department since 1936. Currently,
42
the Department operates 9 programs: (1) fish culture, (2) fisheries management, (3) wildlife
management, (4) conservation law enforcement, (5) forestry, (6) water resources, (7)
resource marketing, (8) parks and recreation, and (9) multi-media.
To better carry out the Band's constitutional responsibility for natural resources
protection, we developed a ten year Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) which
establishes a coordinated approach to the management of our diverse resources.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the IRMP has been impeded by a lack of funding.
However, we remain committed to the IRMP, which is vital to our ability to develop a
sustainable economy, in which our natural resources and the Reservation environment can
thrive while co-existing with our economic development initiatives.
We see the enactment of fish and wildlife legislation as an important step towards the
protection and enhancement of the Reservation's natural resources. In our view, the
Committee should draft legislation that will define the federal government's commitment to
and recognition of tribal natural resources departments, provide stable and continued
funding for such departments, define the trust responsibility as it pertains to tribal natural
resources, and recognize tribal jurisdiction over all natural resources and all persons within
the exterior boundaries of the reservation.
In fulfillment of these objectives, we are pleased to suggest for the Committee's
consideration several specific initiatives for inclusion in the legislation. We also have
concerns which are of a more immediate nature ~ that may affect the FY94 funding for
natural resources. We describe both of these matters below.
A. Proposals for consideration as legislative initiatives
1. The legislation should set forth the federal trust responsibility for tribal
natural resources. The legislation should clearly set forth the federal trust responsibility for
the protection of tribal natural resources. In addition, it should strongly support the
operation of tribal natural resource programs and seek to coordinate the existing federal
programs which assist tribes in the operation of their natural resource programs.
The protection and enhancement of tribal natural resources goes to the core of the
federal trust responsibility. These resources, protected and secured to the tribes by treaty,
have a vital role in the culture, religion, and economy of Indian tribes. The guarantees of
the treaty -- reserving these rights to the tribes -- are meaningless unless these resources
receive the protection needed for them to thrive. This is exactly what the trust responsibility
is intended to do - protect the guarantees of the treaties. The legislation should confirm
that the federal role in the protection of these resources is a function of the trust
responsibility and should commit the government to providing the necessary protections in
its role as trustee.
43
The legislation should also support, in accordance with the Self-Determination policy,
the operation of tribal natural resource programs and should encourage the coordination of
federal programs which impact on natural resource protection and enhancement. Presently,
tribes deal with many federal agencies -- the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, among others -- on natural resource matters. Each agency may have its own Indian
Policy — which may or may not be the same as others. This creates inconsistencies in the
implementation of the Self-Determination policy and makes it far more difficult for the
tribes to coordinate their natural resource programs. These inconsistencies should be
rectified by the inclusion of a clear and concise statement of the federal trust responsibility
in the legislation and by its consistent implementation in accordance with the terms of the
legislation.
2. Integrated resource management plans should be supported. The protection and
enhancement of on and off-reservation natural resources is vitally important to the tribal
future. Our culture, our religion and our economy all rely on the availability of the plants
and animals on which we have depended from time immemorial and which our treaties
provide us with a right to harvest.
To protect these resources, our decisions in other areas - economic development,
environmental protection, and infrastructure development, for example - must be made with
an understanding of what impact these decisions will have on our resource base and what
alternatives are available. Initially, this will require that the tribes undertake the substantial
task of acquiring the baseline data about the reservation resources and environment which
is needed to develop such a plan. Once this information is acquired, it must be organized
and stored in an efficient and cost effective manner which makes it accessible for planning
purposes. The use of systems such as the GIS system, which many governments are now
using, should be encouraged to enhance the utility of natural resource information.
Developing this data base and converting it to a useful form will take time and require
funding. This funding should be viewed as an investment in the reservation's future and
should be provided for in the legislation.
In sum, we believe it critical that the legislation support and provide funding for the
development and implementation of integrated natural resource management plans, such
as that which the Band has sought to develop. These plans are essential to the tribes' ability
to make decisions which are in accordance with their religious, cultural, environmental,
subsistence and economic objectives. The legislation should also recognize the tribes'
inherent rights to make and implement decisions which are necessary to protect the
reservation natural resources and environment.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Brendak and Montana should be
legislatively modified. Many states, relying on the Brendale and Montana decisions, generate
substantial revenues from the sale to non-Indians of licenses to hunt on fee lands and fish
on navigable waters within reservation boundaries. This occurs on our Reservation, on
44
which over 95% of the people fishing are non-Indians. We generate no revenue from these
users of our waters. Other tribes are in the same situation.
This situation is unfair. Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign authority over the
management of the reservation's natural resources. Furthermore, it is the tribes who
actually manage the reservation's natural resources. Yet, when reservation fee land or
navigable waters are involved, the Montana and Brendale decisions in many instances shut
the tribes out of the economic benefit of non-Indian hunting and fishing activity.
Both the Brendale and Montana decisions should be modified legislatively to make
it clear beyond question that Indian tribes may regulate non-Indians utilizing the tribe's
natural resources on fee lands and navigable waters within their territories and to insure that
Indian tribes have the opportunity to generate revenues from these activities.
4. Fish Hatchery Construction and Operations. We operate a very successful
fish hatchery on our Reservation, which provides substantial benefit to the Indian and non-
Indian community. Unfortunately, our facility - which was built in 1936 - is antiquated and
in need of replacement. While we have made the best use of the facility that we could, the
fact is that the wiring and plumbing in our facility is unsafe and hazardous. Moreover, as
our program has grown we find that we have outgrown the hatchery - we need a larger
facility.
Unfortunately, we find that there is no federal program available to provide funding
for hatchery construction. In view of the increasingly important role that fish hatcheries play
in natural resource management, we think it is important that the legislation address these
needs, and provide a mechanism for hatchery construction funding.
B. Problems potentially affecting FY94 appropriations
There are two actions which the Bush Administration had proposed for the FY94
BIA budget which, unless reversed would have a serious detrimental impact on tribal natural
resources programs. They are as follows:
1. Proposed elimination of two BIA natural resources programs. The BIA
proposes to zero out funding for tribal hatchery operations ($2.99 million) and tribal
management and development projects ($6.65 million), and instead seek to fund these
programs with Dingell-Johnson Pittman-Robertson (DJPR) Act monies. To accomplish this,
we understand that the Bush budget proposed that changes be made in the Interior
Appropriations Act to make tribes eligible for DJPR funding, which would then be used to
fund these programs.
The Band operates a very successful fish hatchery, which makes a substantial
contribution to the Reservation fishery, benefitting Indians and non-Indians alike. We know
first hand how important tribal fish hatchery operations are to the economic well-being of
45
many tribes. In addition, tribal management and development funds have enabled the Band
and many other tribes to improve their fish and game management, promote tourism, and
otherwise enhance the conservation and development of tribal natural resources.
Elimination of a stable funding source for these important programs with no
guarantee that ongoing projects will be continued -- as the Bush budget proposed -- would
deal a severe blow to the stable development of tribal natural resource programs, putting
at risk the years of progress which these programs have made.
The timing of this proposal is particularly bad because the tribes are now working to
develop a legislative proposal to secure a share of DJPR funds for tribes. The Bush
proposal would short circuit this work and pre-empt congressional efforts to address it as
well. We urge the Committee to oppose any such proposal.
2. Proposal to disregard Congressional directive concerning appropriations
increases. The second Bush Administration FY94 BIA budget proposal would also affect
fish hatchery operations and tribal management and development funds as well as funding
for the rights protection programs. (As the Committee is aware, the rights protection
program encompasses a broad range of activities that enables tribes to implement their
treaty hunting and fishing rights.) Over the last several years. Congress has added significant
funds to all three of these accounts. The Bush Administration has consistently sought to
eliminate these increases. While Congress has continued to restore them, the BIA does not
distribute the restored funds until at least four months into the next fiscal year. This greatly
disrupts the programs and makes long range planning impossible.
During the FY 1993 appropriations process, Congress instructed the BIA to place
increases in these programs into the base budget and to include them in its proposed budget
for FY 1994. The Bush budget proposed to disregard this directive and to eliminate all add-
ons for BIA natural resource programs.
This manipulation of budget figures has real and disastrous consequences for the
targeted programs, putting in serious jeopardy the ability of the affected tribes to protect
reservation natural resources. We urge the Committee to oppose any such proposal.
In conclusion, let me restate that the Reservation's natural resources are one of the
biggest assets the Band has to provide cultural, subsistence, economic, and social
opportunities for the tribal membership. By drafting comprehensive fish and wildlife
legislation, Congress can fulfill the trust responsibility to tribes and assist tribal governments
in fulfilling their responsibility to protect, conserve and enhance tribal resources for present
and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have about our concerns.
46
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Maulson.
I know that for some of you perhaps this may be your first expe-
rience in coming to Washington and testifying before a Congres-
sional hearing. It may also be to you a disappointment to see that
not very many members are here to listen and to hear the testi-
monies of those who appear before the committee.
But I want to give assurance to all of you that sometimes when
you see this, don't be misled to think that the testimonies are not
an important part of the whole hearings process.
This is the very reason that we have everything, and I will sub-
mit this for the record, that all of your testimonies will be incor-
porated and be made part of the record.
And before the committee can make a decision on given legisla-
tion, even for purposes of oversight, the fact is that we need to
have a record.
And this is the very reason why we're having the hearing. And
as the Chairman has stated earlier, sometimes we have conflicting
appointments or commitments — sometimes we have five appoint-
ments in the same given time. And I don't think there's any way
that any of us can adequately address some of the problems affect-
ing the Administration and the procedures that we have here on
the hill.
But I want to give assurance to our fi*iends who are testify this
morning that it is very important, and that we will take your state-
ments in all seriousness, and that hopefully by building this record,
we will be able to develop the kind of legislation that will be help-
ful to meet the needs of our Native American community.
So I just want to state that for the record.
Mr. Schlender.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. SCHLENDER
Mr. Schlender. Mr. Chairman, my name is James Schlender,
and I'm the Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission.
On behalf of the Commission's 13 member tribes, located in the
States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, I'd like to thank you
for the opportunity to appear here today regarding Indian fish and
wildlife management and enhancement issues.
In this testimony, I would like to refer the Committee to our
written testimony regarding the comprehensive natural resources
management programs that the Commission undertakes on behalf
of its member tribes on more than 16 million acres of off-reserva-
tion lands and waters.
In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest some
of the ways we feel federal legislation could help to preserve and
strengthen these kinds of natural resource programs.
I will forego describing what we do and go right to the need for
federal legislation.
The Commission's activities are necessary to the protection of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources which continue to be central to
the cultural, religious and economic lives of the tribal members we
serve.
47
Despite the importance of these activities, there is no overall fed-
eral statutory mandate for the protection of natural resources that
tribes use.
This means that, for the most part, the protection and manage-
ment of tribal fish and wildlife resources depends upon the initia-
tive of tribes and tribal organizations, and the uncertainty of the
federal appropriations process.
Tribal efforts to regulate their fish, wildlife and gathering rights
should be supported and strengthened through federal legislation.
From the Commission's experience, we would suggest that the
legislation should address the following topics, among others:
First, tribes have the sovereign authority to regulate tribal mem-
bers in the exercise of their treaty rights, as well as the authority
to manage the natural resources subject to tribal member harvest.
Federal law should clearly acknowledge the primacy of tribal self-
regulation of treaty protected natural resources both on and off the
reservation.
Second, the federal responsibility must go beyond the recognition
of the tribal right to self-regulate with respect to natural resources.
The United States must, in addition, provide tribes with the op-
portunity to participate fiilly with other governments on matters
which have a substantial impact on tribal natural resources.
The United States must assure the tribes of full representation
and voting status on a government to government basis on any
board or agency which is involved in decisions which affect tribal
rights to natural resources.
Third, when tribes entered treaties reserving their hunting, fish-
ing, and gathering rights, those treaties were with the United
States, and not with a single agency.
The federal trust responsibility arising out of those treaties ap-
plies to all federal dealings, and I underscore all. The responsibility
is not limited just to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Yet, in dealing with issues affecting tribal treaty rights, the fed-
eral agencies differ greatly from one another.
Our experience has been that in addressing tribal natural re-
source issues, the BIA has typically recognized that its actions
must be consistent with the trust responsibility. The BIA has gen-
erally supported the Commission's self-regulatory efforts.
But certain other agencies do not always deal with the Commis-
sion in the manner of a trustee. The result has been an uneven and
inconsistent relationship between the tribes and the various federal
agencies whose actions affect natural resources.
We would suggest that federal legislation should clarify that the
federal trust responsibility apphes across the board to all federal
agencies in their dealings with tribal natural resource issues.
The legislation should also mandate that the govemment-to-gov-
emment relationship be institutionalized by these agencies through
the establishment of Indian desks and other means. Too often, In-
dian desks are desks with just three legs. And we need to go be-
yond that.
Fourth, while the Commission is proud of its natural resource
management program and of its many accomplishments, there re-
main significant unmet needs. Additional member tribes of the
Commission, particularly those in Michigan and Minnesota, are
48
now properly asserting and exercising their off-reservation treaty
rights.
The Commission must be able to provide the same level of natu-
ral resource management services to all of its member tribes.
Right now, the Commission has sufficient funding to meet only
one-third of the needs of its member tribes.
In addition, environmental protection is becoming increasingly
important. Stresses on tribal natural resources come from many
areas, including environmental degradation.
The Commission's member tribes require the means to assess the
environmental impacts of pollution discharges into the air and
water of the ceded territories, and to participate as equal partners
in the development of state, federal, and international environ-
mental protection regulatory initiatives.
Tribal and inter-tribal natural resources self-regulation meant to
{)erpetuate and enhance natural resources is not very useful if pol-
ution destroys the very resources upon which the rights depend.
Faced with these needs, tribes at the same time have faced
threats to the continuation of funding for tribal natural resource
programs.
For example, in its FY '93 budget proposal, the Administration
proposed reducing the Commission s appropriation by about 39 per-
cent. Such budget fights hurt tribal efforts to carry out a com-
prehensive natural resources management program.
Legislation supporting tribal self-regulation of natural resources
would greatly enhance the position of tribes and tribal organiza-
tions seeking to assure the funding needed to move forward in the
area of natural resources management.
Fifth, despite its best efforts, the Commission is not always able
to find Indian candidates for its job openings. This is particularly
true in the case of biologists. But a more comprehensive program,
including federal scholarships and loans, is needed to help tribal
members into the educational programs involving resource man-
agement.
Finally and in conclusion, we appreciate the Committee's sen-
sitivity to tribal needs regarding plant, wildlife, and fish enhance-
ment.
This is an area in which tribes and tribal organizations are exer-
cising their self-governing authority to protect activities of long-
standing and continuing importance to Indian people.
We look forward to working with the Committee to help shape
legislation to protect tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights
and the tribal management and enhancement of those rights.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Schlender follows:]
49
GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
p. O. Box 9 . Odanah. WI 54861 . 715/682-6619 . FAX 715/682-9294
MICHIGAN
Bay Mills Community
Keweenaw Bay Community
Lac Vieux Desert Band
• MEMBER TRIBES '
WISCONSIN
Bad River Band
Lac Courte OreiUes Band
Lac du Flambeau Band
Red Cliff Band
St Crou Chippewa
Sokaogon Chippewa
MINNESOTA
Bois Forte Band
Fond du Lac Band
Grand Portage Band
Mille Lacs Band
TESTIMONY OF JAMES tt SCHLENDER,
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
of
THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
Before the
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Native American AfEairs
Februaiy 18, 1993
50
Testimony of James H. Schlender, Executive Administrator
of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and WDdlife Commission
Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee. My name is James H. Schlender and
I am the Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(GLIFWC). On Ijehalf of GUFWC's thirteen member tribes, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today regarding Indian fish and wildlife management
and enhancement issues.
The purpose of my testimony today is twofold: 1) to provide the Committee with
information on the comprehensive natural resource management programs that GLIFWC
undertakes on behalf of its member tribes; and 2) to suggest some of the ways federal
legislation could help to preserve and strengthen these kinds of natural resource programs.
I. GLIFWC'S MEMBERSHIP AND PURPOSE
GLIFWC is comprised of 13 federally recognized tribes in Wisconsin, Minnesota and
Michigan (a list of our member tribes is attached as Appendix A to this testimony). Each
of our member tribes entered one or more treaties with the United States, under which the
tribes reserved off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights in lands ceded to the
United States. These treaty rights have been recognized by the courts, including in the
multifaceted Lac Courte Oreilles litigation ("LCO" case), which is sometimes known as the
Voigt case.
GLIFWC was established by the tribes to protect and regulate the use of their off-
reservation natural resources. Its purpose is to conserve and manage the fish, wildlife and
other resources subject to tribal off-reservation treaty rights, to facilitate the development
of institutions of tribal self-regulation and management of natural resources, and to protect
the habitats and ecosystems that support those resources from environmental degradation.
The GLIFWC member tribes have delegated to GLIFWC a portion of their sovereign
authority involving the regulation and management of treaty-reserved, off-reservation
hunting, fishing and gathering rights. In carrying out this delegation of tribal authority,
GLIFWC formulates and undertakes a comprehensive natural resource management
program. This program is designed to ensure that these off-reservation rights are protected
and preserved for the benefit of present and future tribal members.
GLIFWC is an intertribal organization which, in our view, provides to its member
tribes a high level of biological, management and other expertise. While it is often suggested
in other contexts that tribes are reluctant to work together, GLIFWC is proud to serve as
an organization of tribes, working together in a coordinated manner for the common goal
of protecting their off-reservation treaty rights.
51
As discussed in more detail below, GLIFWC's major activities include providing
biological assessments of various species, monitoring the taking of fish, wildhfe and plants,
developing natural resource management plans and conservation codes, providing
conservation officers to implement tribal law with respect to off reservation areas, preparing
and presenting information to educate the public about the facts concerning off reservation
treaty rights, assisting tribal courts in addressing violations of tribal game and fish
management ordinances, working with state, federal and foreign governments on issues of
mutual concern, and providing educational opportunities for tribal members in the natural
resources area. All these activities are necessary to the protection of the fish, wildlife and
gathering resources which continue to be central to the cultural, religious and economic lives
of the tribal members we serve.
II. GUFWC'S OFF-RESERVATION NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
Biological Assessments and Resource Monitoring. GLIFWC conducts a variety of fish
and wildlife assessments, monitors tribal fishing, assists in tribal permitting, and provides
other management assistance. For example, GLIFWC performs the following:
• Sample, monitor and prepare an annual report on tribal commercial
fish harvests in off-reservation areas of the 1842 ceded territory in
Michigan.
• Provide technical assistance to member tribes regarding the
management of the intertribal fishery of Lake Superior.
• Monitor catch of tribal fishers from inland waters in the Wisconsin and
Michigan ceded territories, and assist tribe in managing harvest through
permit systems or other means. This includes complete on-site
monitoring of all open water spearing and netting.
• Provide technical assistance and advice to member tribes regarding
inland fishery resources, including assistance in negotiation and
litigation, and inter-agency cooperative management projects.
• Conduct fish population assessments and surveys of areas that have
been or are likely to be fished under treaty rights. These include fall
electrofishing surveys during late summer and fall and mark-recapture
population estimates.
• Assist member tribes in managing wildlife and wild rice harvests in the
ceded territories.
OUFWC ToliDony
Febnuiy 18. 1993
P>(c2
52
• Supervise tribal permit and registration stations for deer, bear, fisher,
otter and bobcat.
• Conduct studies of wildlife populations to provide information needed
to manage tribal harvest
Fish and Wildlife Enforcement. GLIFWC also provides the staff and expertise to
enforce tribal law with respect to the use of off-reservation natural resources. This includes:
• As authorized by member tribes, be responsible for patrol, protection
and investigative services in the areas of Michigan, Minnesota and
Wisconsin ceded by the 1836, 1837, 1842 and 1854 Treaties, including
Lake Superior.
• Maintain scheduled conservation enforcement tours of duty providing
response capability, regular patrols and prevention services seven days
a week.
• Serve conservation related warrants, summonses and complaints as
directed by tribal courts.
• Implement prevention, safety and education programs to prevent
violations and accidents.
All GLIFWC wardens are fully-certified conservation officers who must complete
basic police recruit or equivalent training within one year of being hired. Each year,
GLIFWC wardens must attend forty hours of additional in-service training. To meet this
requirement, GLIFWC wardens have attended crowd control training, hazardous materials
training, hunting and firearm safety training, accident investigation training, and boating
safety water rescue training, among others.
Public Information and Education Activities. GLIFWC engages in public information
and education activities to increase public knowledge and understanding of tribal off-
reservation resource management activities, and of tribal sovereignty and tradition. One of
the primary goals of these activities is to raise public awareness and diminish conflict over
off-reservation treaty rights.
Specific public information education activities include:
• Presentations by biologists and attorneys/policy analysts at schools, civic
organizations, various public forums and professional conferences.
GUFWC Teuimony
Febnuiy 18. 1993
Pate 3
53
• Publication and dissemination of informational and educational
materials, including newspaper, reports on tribal off-reservation
harvests, booklets describing tribes and their treaty rights, and articles
on GLIFWC's resource management activities.
• Production of informational and educational videos for use at
presentations and for broadcasts such as television public service
announcements.
• Training sessions on tribes and tribal traditions and cultural for state
departments of natural resource staff.
• Information displays at fairs, including the Minnesota and Wisconsin
state fairs, trade and sport shows, tribal pow-wows, and educational
and professional conferences.
Judicial Services. GLIFWC assists member tribes in providing judicial services with
regard to cases involving persons accused of violating applicable member tribe off-
reservation ordinances for areas of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota ceded by the 1836,
1837, 1842 and 1854 Treaties.
III. GUFWC'S CO-MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Because the natural resources subject to tribal off-reservation treaty rights are in
certain instances subject to the overlapping interests of many governments, GLIFWC
undertakes a wide range of co-management resource management activities with state,
federal and foreign governments. Some of these activities are the direct result of litigation
and court orders, while others are pursued as part of the general govemment-to-govemment
relationship between tribes and other governments.
For example, court orders in the LCO case provide for tribal participation in any
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) committee involving the natural
resources within the portions of the 1837 and 1842 Treaty ceded territories located in
Wisconsin. These orders generally require the WDNR to recognize tribal representatives
as official members of species advisory committees and any other committees created to
manage or impacting the species involved and their habitat They also generally require all
reasonable efforts to reach consensus in the committees. GLIFWC's member tribes have
designated GLIFWC biologists to serve as tribal representatives on these committees.
Beyond the particular context of the LCO case, GLIFWC represents its member
tribes in the following bodies or committees:
GUFWC Teuimony
Febnuiy 18. 1993
Pate 4
54
• Great Lakes Fishery Commission's TGLFC) Committee of the Whole.
Operations Subcommittee. Lake Superior Technical Committee. Lake
Superior Committee. Law Enforcement Committee, and Ruffe Task
Force - GLFC was established by the Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified in
1955. See 16 USC § 931, et se^. GLFC coordinates programs of
research in the Great Lakes and makes recommendations which will
permit the maximum sustained productivity of fish stocks. It also
carries out sea lamprey control programs. The various GLFC
committees on which GLIFWC sits are comprised of governmental
representatives from the Canadian and provincial governments and
from the United States federal, state and tribal governments. Their
purpose is to advise GLFC's Canadian and United States
Commissioners on technical and policy matters.
• Technical Committees of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Mississippi Flvway Council - The Technical Committees,
comprised of federal, state and tribal biologists, advise the Flyway
Council on the status of waterfowl populations and their habitat The
Flyway Council, comprised of representatives of state natural resource
management agencies, makes recommendations to USFWS on
migratory bird hunting season frameworks.
• Great Lakes Panel of the USFWS Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force - The Task Force, created by the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, P.L. 101-646, 104 StaL
4761, consists of representatives of federal, state and tribal resource
management agencies. Its purpose is to assist governments in
preventing and controlling nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species,
including the zebra mussel and ruffe in the Great Lakes.
GLIFWC has also undertaken a number of specific co-management projects. These
include:
• Environmental Health Laboratory. Lake Superior Research Institute.
University of Wisconsin-Superior - In 1990, GLIFWC and UW-
Superior entered into a cooperative agreement for the establishment
of an Environmental Health Laboratory. This laboratory has
undertaken a number of studies regarding the health effects of
contaminated fish on Indian people.
• Ceded Territory Cooperative Wetlands Enhancement Project - Funded
by GLIFWC and in cooperation with Wisconsin Department of Natural
OUFWC Tetiimony
Fcbnury 18, 1993
55
Resources (WDNR) and United States Forest Service resource
managers, this project was designed to create, restore and enhance
wetlands at various sites in Northern Wisconsin to increase habitats for
breeding and migrating waterfowl.
• Fish Population Assessment Activities - GLIFWC works with the
WDNR, the Michigan DNR, USFWS and member tribes in its ongoing
fish population assessment programs in Lake Superior and in iiiland
lakes of the ceded territory.
A joint fishery assessment of the Wisconsin ceded territory -
undertaken by USFWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, WDNR, GUFWC,
and the six Wisconsin Chippewa Tribes — led to publication of a report
- Casting Light Upon the Waters: A Joint Fishery Assessment of the
Wisconsin Ceded Territory (United States Department of the Interior,
1991). This publication contained a series of recommendations on
management of these resources.
• Sea Lamprey Control Projects ~ GLIFWC works with GLFC, USFWS
and state governments in lamprey control projects in and around Lake
Superior.
• Cooperative Law Enforcement Activities - Cooperative law
enforcement is an important aspect of GLIFWC's co-management
activities. To ensure effective enforcement of tribal conservation laws,
member tribes generally authorize state conservation wardens to
enforce tribal off-reservation conservation codes, citing violators into
tribal court Similarly, to ensure effective enforcement of state
conservation laws, the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of
Natural Resources authorize tribal and GLIFWC wardens to enforce
state law against non-Indians.
IV. GLIFWC'S EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIBAL MEMBERS
GLIFWC and its member tribes are committed to the education and training of tribal
members for the purposes of career opportunities in the natural resource management field.
Each year, GLIFWC enters into student internship agreements with various schools and
universities. One of the goals of the internships is to provide field experience to students
of biology and natural resource management. Another goal is to train students so that they
can engage in public information/education activities for their respective tribes.
GUFWC Teuimony
Februjiy 18, 1993
Pite6
56
V. THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION
As the above discussion reflects, GLIFWC's activities bring together some of the
central themes of federal Indian policy - the preservation of historically and culturally
significant activities of Indian people, the fulfillment of federal promises made to the tribes
by treaty, the protection of significant Indian economic activity, the enhancement of self-
government by tribes, the encouragement of tribes working on a government to government
basis with states and the United States, and the promotion of educational opportunities for
Indian people. Despite the significance of these themes in the natural resources area, there
is no overall federal statutory mandate for the protection of tribal natural resources. This
means that, for the most part, the protection and management of tribal fish and wildlife
resources depends on the initiative of tribes and tribal organizations, and the vagaries of the
federal appropriations process. Tribal efforts to regulate their fish, wildlife and gathering
rights must be supported and strengthened through federal legislation. From GLIFWC's
experience, we would suggest that such legislation should address the following topics, among
others:
1. Express federal recognition of tribal natural resource management authority.
A point often not understood by the public is that tribal use of natural resources is
only part of the overall framework of tribal involvement with those natural resources. Tribes
also have the sovereign authority to regulate tribal members in the exercise of their treaty
rights, as well as the authority to manage the natural resources subject to tribal member
harvest Federal law should clearly acknowledge the primacy of tribal self-regulation of
treaty protected natural resources, both on and off the reservation.
The tribal right to self regulation has been longstanding. For example, the Chippewa
wild rice Chief had a traditional role of determining when the wild rice is ready for harvest
and where tribal members may harvest it The wild rice Chiefs role has been preserved and
is part of modem-day tribal off-reservation conservation codes. In essence, tribes have
always been self-regulating in the context of natural resources. But today their ability to
preserve this role depends to a considerable degree on the willingness of the United States
to recognize and seek to further tribal efforts in this area.
2. Full tribal participation in decisions affecting tribal natural resources.
The federal responsibility must go beyond the recognition of the tribal right to self
regulate with respect to natural resources. The United States must in addition provide tribes
with the opportunity to participate fully with other governments on matters which have a
substantial impact on tribal natural resources. The United States must assure the Tribes of
full representation and voting status on a government-to-govemment basis on any board or
agency which is involved in decisions which affect tribal rights to natural resources.
GUFWC Tolimony
Febnuiy 18, 1993
Pa|t7
57
GLIFWC's co-management activities illustrate the types of bodies and committees in
which tribes must participate as full partners. These include processes under international
agreements such as the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries Between Canada and the
United States, §ee 16 USC § 93, et seg., federal legislative initiatives addressing issues of
common concern, such as the Aquatic Nuisances Species Control Act, P.L. 101-646, 104 Stat
4761, as well as agencies of the federal government, such as United States Forest Service
in its management of national forests, the Environmental Protection Agency in its
implementation of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service in its implementation of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
3. Recognition of trust responsibility by all federal agencies.
When tribes entered treaties reserving their hunting, fishing and gathering rights,
those treaties were with the United States, not with a single agency. The federal trust
responsibility arising out of those treaties applies to aU federal dealings with the tribes, and
is not limited to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Yet, in dealing with issues affecting tribal
treaty rights, the federal agencies differ markedly from one another.
GLIFWC's experience has been that - in addressing tribal natural resource issues -
the BIA has typically recognized that its actions must comport with the trust responsibility,
and has supported GLIFWC's self-regulatory efforts. But certain other agencies have, in
some respects, not dealt with GLIFWC in the manner of a trustee. The result has been an
uneven and inconsistent relationship between the tribes and the various federal agencies
whose actions affect natural resources.
We would suggest that federal legislation should clarify that the federal trust
responsibility applies across the board to all federal agencies in their dealings with tribal
natural resource issues. The legislation should also mandate that the govemment-to-
govemment relationship be institutionalized by these agencies, through establishing Indian
desks and other means.
4. Adequate and stable funding to support tribal self-regulation.
As GLIFWC's natural resource management program illustrates, the tribal right to
self-regulation requires certain elements of infrastructure if it is to be effectively exercised.
These elements ~ many of which are mandated by court order - include a natural resource
management program involving conservation codes, biologists, conservation law enforcement
officers, tribal courts and judges, natural resource enhancement activities, public information
and education activities, and co-management activities with other governments.
GLIFWC is proud of its natural resource management program and of its many
accomplishments. In particular, GLIFWC's role in the LCO case and the resulting
management system in Wisconsin is noteworthy. But there remain significant unmet needs.
GUFWC Tetlimony
Febnuiy 18. 1993
Pi(e8
58
Additional member tribes of GLIFWC - particularly those in Michigan and Minnesota -
are now properly asserting and exercising their off-reservation treaty rights. GLIFWC must
be able to provide the same level of natural resource management services to all its member
tribes. Right now, GLIFWC has sufficient funding to meet only one-third of the needs of
its member tribes.
Moreover, for all the tribes involved with natural resource management,
environmental protection is becoming increasingly important. Historically, GLIFWC's efforts
have been focused on the affirmation of the existence of treaty rights and, once affirmed,
on the implementation of those rights. However, management of tribal member harvest is
only part of the job. Stresses on tribal natural resources come from many areas, most
notably from environmental degradation. GLIFWC's member tribes require the resources
and technical expertise to enable them to assess the environmental impacts of pollution
discharges into the air and water of the ceded territories; to analyze and participate in
permitting processes for new industrial development, such as paper mills, copper smelters
and mining activities; and to participate as equal partners in the development of state,
federal and international environmental protection regulatory initiatives. Tribal and
intertribal natural resources self-regulation is of limited utility if pollution destroys the
resources.
Faced with these challenges, tribes have simultaneously encountered ongoing threats
to the continuation of funding for tribal natural resource programs. For example, in its FY
93 budget proposal, the Administration proposed reducing GLIFWC's appropriation by
approximately 39%. A similar proposal was made in FY 92. Congress routinely has rejected
the Administration's proposed cutbacks. Ultimately, in the FY 93 Appropriations
Conference Conunittee Report specifically directed:
Unless specifically indicated otherwise, add-ons in the resources
management program (or recurring programs) are to be added
to the base of the tribe or tribal organization, and to be
included in future budget requests, beginning in fiscal year 1994.
These budget fights - which are typical of those faced by tribes in the natural
resources area - impede GLIFWC's efforts to carry out a comprehensive natural resources
management program. Substantive legislation supporting tribal self-regulation of natural
resources would greatly enhance the position of tribes seeking to assure the funding needed
to move forward in the area of natural resources management.
5. Tribal member career opportunities in natural resource management programs
must be enhanced.
Despite its best efforts, GLIFWC is not always able to find Indian candidates for its
job openings. This is particularly true in the case of biologists. As GLIFWC's experience
GUFWC Teuimony
Fcbnuiy 18, 1993
Pi»e9
59
with its student internship program illustrates, opportunities are available to Indian students
interested in natural resource management careers. But a more comprehensive program -
including federal scholarships and loans - is needed to encourage interest by and
recruitment of tribal members into the educational programs associated with resource
management
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the Committee's sensitivity to tribal needs regarding plant, wildlife and
fish enhancement This area - in which tribes and tribal organizations are exercising their
self-governing authority to protect activities of longstanding and continuing importance to
Indian people ~ has been underserved by federal law. We look forward to working with the
Committee to help shape legislation to protect tribal hunting, fishing and gathering rights,
and the tribal management and enhancement of those rights.
Thank you.
GUFWC Tetiimony
Febnury 18. 1993
P«te 10
60
GUFWCS MEMBER TRIBES
Wisconsin
Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
Sokaogon Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Minnesota
Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians
Grand Portage Chippewa Tribe
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians
Bois Forte Chippewa Tribe
Michigan
Bay Mills Indian Community
Keweena Bay Indian Community
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Appendix A
61
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Schlender.
Mr. Poynter.
STATEMENT OF KEN POYNTER
Mr. Poynter. Good morning.
My name is Ken Poynter, and I'm an enrolled member of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and Executive Director of the Na-
tive American Fish & Wildlife Society.
The Society is a national tribal organization established to sup-
port the development of Indian tribal fish and wildlife management
capabilities within a professional framework, and to promote infor-
mation about Indian rights regarding their use of natural re-
sources.
The Society has evolved over the past 11 years into an organiza-
tion of 1,000 professional biologists, managers and technicians, rep-
resenting all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife management and
conservation enforcement.
The Society has obtained formal memberships from 70 tribal gov-
ernments and 8 tribal organizational memberships.
Our board of directors is comprised of 14 Native American people
who represent all geographic regions of the United States.
The federally recognized Indian tribes within the United States
have jurisdiction over a reservation land base of over 52 million
acres, or 81,250 square miles.
Tribes also exercise jurisdictional authority over natural re-
sources outside of reservations due to federal court decisions and
voluntary cooperative agreements that mandate a co-management
status between tribes and states in the Northwest and Great Lakes
areas.
Tribal lands coupled with the Ceded and Usual and Accustomed
areas (over 38 million acres for which tribes maintain co-manage-
ment jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management and utili-
zation) total a natural resource base of over 140,625 square miles,
containing more than a million acres of lakes and impoundments,
and thousands of miles of streams and rivers.
Combined reservation lands would constitute the fifth largest
state in the United States. Adding the off-reservation areas would
constitute a land mass comparable to the State of Montana.
The State of Alaska alone has 45 million acres of land which sup-
ports native subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. The mem-
agement of this subsistence resource, the source of life for the in-
digenous people of Alaska, is in complete disarray, with these peo-
ple precluded in the management of the very resources which sus-
tain them.
It is essential that the magnitude of the resource base under
tribal jurisdiction be fully understood in order to imderscore the ne-
cessity for support of tribal resource management activities.
Tribal land bases now contribute significantly toward meeting
the demand for fisheries and wildlife recreational opportunities.
Unfortunately, fisheries and wildlife funding options open to
tribes have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for
management, authority, or the demand for recreational opportuni-
ties by the tribal and non-tribal user.
62
Tribes are now being recognized as prominent fisheries and wild-
life management entities and are expecting full participation as
partners in national fisheries and wildlife initiatives.
Tribes must be accorded full participation in these initiatives by
virtue of the extent of reservation land bases, but also, and more
important, because tribes are sovereign governments and must be
dealt with as such. Sovereignty is a very important aspect of tribal
governmental operations and must not be ignored or minimized.
Indian tribes have been reasserting their treaty rights concern-
ing the management of fish and wildlife resources. As the demand
for fisheries and wildlife recreation in this country has increased,
pressure has increased on the fisheries and wildlife resources on
Indian reservations and other areas where tribes have jurisdiction
and/or co-management authority.
Tribes across the coimtry now contribute significantly toward
meeting the demand for fisheries £ind wildlife recreational opportu-
nities. Unfortunately, recreational fisheries and wildlife funding op-
tions open to tribes have not kept pace with the expanding respon-
sibilities for management, authority, or the demand for rec-
reational opportunities by the tribal and non-tribal user.
Over the years, the Society has requested proposals fi"om tribes
for fish and wildlife programs. I have brought along, as a visual
aid, a number of proposals the Society has collected in the last
three years of specific programs that have not been funded, and to
demonstrate the need for increased funding for fish and wildlife
management.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Poynter, did you mean to provide that
as part of your testimony?
Mr. Poynter. I did submit it with my 75 copies. You have it for
the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Mr. Poynter. As an example of the disparity in staffing levels,
currently, the U.S. Forest Service manages 190 million acres of
land for multiple use. They employ 1,320 fisheries and wildlife bi-
ologists and ecologists.
In contrast, the combined tribal and BIA staffs equal about 300
for over 95 million acres, most of whom are employed in positions
of multiple duties, such as biologists/administrators.
The Society feels that we're echoing some of the concerns here
this morning of tribes, specifically the Navajo, that tribes need to
participate mlly in the various federal aid programs. Specifically,
Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux.
We are also advocating the development of a Native American
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act, that would create an addi-
tional ftmding source for fish and wildlife enhancement in Indicui
country.
I will not read further fi*om my testimony, since you have that.
But I would just like to conclude by saying that, in the future,
I would urge better coordination of these hearings, due to the lim-
ited fiinding that tribes have to operate with. It gets very escpensive
for them to send people here to Washington to participate in these
important forums.
For example, next week, many different Indian organizations and
tribes will be in town for various meetings. It would be to every-
63
one's benefit if hearings of this type were scheduled during those
weeks that tribes plan to be in Washington in order to increase
tribal participation and to help reduce travel costs to them.
Since this meeting was first announced, my office has been
bombarded with calls from many tribes across the country, inquir-
ing about the intent of this particular hearing, and their interest
in participating.
I would like to kindly suggest that due to the importance of natu-
ral resource program funding to tribes, that the Committee con-
sider conducting regional meetings to get full participation from as
many different tribes as possible, and to better understand the dif-
ferent concerns specific to those regions.
Thank you for your attention and interest.
[Editor's note. — Documents submitted by Mr. Povnter for the
record may be found in their entirety in the hearing files.]
[Prepared statement of Mr. Poynter with selected exhibits fol-
lows:]
64
NATIVt AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCIETY
750 Burbank Street • Broomficid, Colorado 80020
Phone: (303) 466-1725 • FAX: (303) 466-5414
^Comments on Indian Fish and Wildlife Management and
Enhancement to the U. S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee
on Native American Affairs by:
Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American Fish & Wildlife
Society
Good Morning, My name is Ken Poynter. I am an enrolled
member of the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine and Acting Executive
Director of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society (Society).
The Society is a national tribal organization established to support
the development of Indian tribal government fish and wildlife
management capabilities within a professional framework, and to
promote information about Indian rights regarding their use of
natural resources. The Society has evolved over the past 11 years
into an organization of 1,000 professional biologists, managers and
technicians, representing all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife
management and conservation enforcement. The Society has
obtained formal memberships from 70 Tribal Governments and eight
tribal organizational memberships including the 1854 Authority,
Great Lakes hidian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
the Six Nations Council of Canada, the United South and Eastern
Tribes, the Ojibway 1850 Treaty Council, and the Chippewa-Ottawa
Treaty Fishery Management Authority, as well as the National
Center for American Indian Enterprise Development and various
State and University Fish and Wildlife Departments. Our
Directorate is comprised of 14 Native American people, who
represent all geographic regions of the Unites States.
The Society is appreciative of the recognition by Congress of
our efforts in promoting the professional development of tribal fish
and wildlife management by taking up the concept of the Native
American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act. The Society initiated
this effort over two years ago as a means to highlight the glaring
discrepancies in the support of the U.S. government for tribal fish
and wildlife resource management. We sincerely hope that the
result of this effort wiU be legislation which provides the tools
needed by tribes for self-directed fish and wildlife management for
the benefit of Indian people and their resources.
65
The federally-recognized Indian tribes within the United
States have jurisdiction over a reservation land base of over 52
million acres, or 81,250 square ndles. Tribes also exercise
jurisdictional authority over natural resources outside of
reservations due to federal court decisions and voluntary
cooperative agreements that mandate a co -management status
between tribes and states in the Northwest and Great Lakes areas.
Tribal lands, coupled with the Ceded and Usual and Accustomed
areas (over 38 million acres for which tribes maintain co-
management jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management and
utilization), total a natural resource base of over 140,625 square
rrdles, containing more than a million acres of lakes and
impoundments (exclusive of the 21,596,800 surface acres of the Great
Lakes Ceded Area) and thousands of miles of streams and rivers.
Combined reservation lands would constitute the fifth largest state
in the United States. Adding the off-reservation areas would
constitute a land mass comparable to the State of Montana. The
State of Alaska alone has 45,000,000 acres of land which supports
native subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. The management
of this subsistence resource - the source of life for the indigenous
people of Alaska - is in complete disarray, with these people
precluded in the management of the very resources which sustain
them.
It is essential that the magnitude of the resource base under
tribal jurisdiction be fuUy understood in order to underscore the
necessity for support of tribal resource management activities.
At least 9 officially recognized endangered avian species, 7
threatened or endangered mammalian species, 11 threatened or
endangered fish species, 12 threatened or endangered plant species,
and 1 threatened reptile species occurs on reservation lands. Tribal
fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon, steeUiead trout, walleye
and other species which support large and diverse fisheries.
Wetlands occurring on reservations throughout the country support
considerable waterfowl production and offer great enhancement
opportunity. Tribal wildlife programs manage and enhance
extensive wildlife habitat for innumerable animal and plant species.
Tribes across the country have begun the process of involvement in
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and have
developed regulations for Tribal members and non-Indians for
harvest of waterfowl. Tribal land bases now contribute
significantly toward meeting the demand for fisheries and wildlife
recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, fisheries and wildlife
66
funding options open to Tribes have not kept pace with the
expanding responsibilities for management, authority, or the demand
for recreational opportunities by the tribal and non-tribal user
Tribes are now being recognized as prominent fisheries and wUdlife
management entities and are expecting fuU participation as partners
in national fisheries and wildlife initiatives.
Tribes must be accorded full participation in these initiatives by
virtue of the extent of reservation land bases but also, and more
importantly, because tribes are sovereign governments, and must be
dealt with as such. Sovereignty is a very important aspect of tribal
governmental operations, and must not be ignored or minimized.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Natural Resource Inventory
System (NRIS) report, representing the only information available at
this time, states that over 15 million user-days of public use were
recorded on Tribal lands in 1986. Seventy-two Tribes were
managing public fishing programs. The Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes, Montana; Fort Apache, Arizona; Leech Lake
Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Pyramid Lake, Nevada; and Lower
Colorado River, Arizona, each provided more than 250,000 days of
public recreational use, most associated with fishing. The Eastern
Band of Cherokees of North Carolina, alone, has provided over
430,310 of angler use days from 1987-1991. Sixty-one tribes
managed public hunting programs, and at least 40 Tribes managed
trapping programs on reservations which were open to non-Indian
participation. Also 88 Tribes opened parts of their Reservations to
public camping in developed, primitive, or wilderness camping areas.
Indian reservations contribute significantly toward meeting the
national demand for fishing and hunting opportunities.
Indian tribes have been re-asserting their treaty-rights
concerning the management of fish and wildlife resources. As the
demand for fisheries and wildlife recreation in this country has
increased, pressure has increased on the fisheries and wildUfe
resources on Indian reservations and other areas where tribes have
jurisdiction and /or co-management authority. Tribes across the
country now contribute significantly toward meeting the demand
for fisheries and wildlife recreational opportunities. Unfortunately,
recreational fisheries and wildlife funding options open to tribes
have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for
management, authority, or the demand for recreational opportunities
by the tribal and non-tribal user
As an example of the disparity in staffing levels, the U.S. Forest
Service manages 190 million acres of lands for multiple use. They
67
employ 1,320 fisheries and wildlife biologists and ecologists. In
contrast, the combined tribal and BIA staffs equal about 300 for over
100 million acres, most of whom are employed in positions of
multiple duties, such as biologist/ administrator.
The Society developed, in 1991, a needs statement and conceptual
framework for legislation to assist tribal fisheries and wildlife
management efforts, titled the "Native American Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement Act". This was developed in response to the stated
needs and desires of tribes for assistance and support. I submit this
concept paper and draft bill to the Sub-committee as an expression
of what is truly needed in supportive legislation.
Federal Aids Programs
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs
are funding avenues used by the states and territories for fisheries
and wildlife enhancement. These programs (Dingell-Johnson,
Pittman-Robertson, and Wallop-Breaux) are Acts of Congress that
tax fishing and hunting gear and motor boat fuel to support the
recreational fisheries and wildlife enhancement programs of aU the
states and territories of the United States of America. These
funding programs were instituted to provide a stable on-going
funding base for fisheries and wildlife enhancement projects
throughout the country. Presently, States and territories are
sharing in the approximately $400 million per year derived from this
program for the enhancement of their fish and wildlife resources.
For example, in 1990 the State of Montana received $3 million for
wildlife, $4.2 million for sport fish restoration, and over $200,000 for
hunter education. The Montana Indian reservations, which
constitute 5 percent of the state, received none of this money.
At present. Tribes are precluded from participation in these
programs for several reasons, among them specific provisions of the
Acts. The first is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR
part 80 (the regulatory foundation for implementing the Acts) in §
80.20 which states, in part " The State must control lands or waters
on which capital improvements are made with Federal Aid funds."
This provision would require Tribes to give up jurisdiction for
projects to be funded on reservations. Another issue precluding
tribal participation is that of civil liability. States and tribes both are
unwilhng to assume liability on projects over which they may not
have complete control. Under the present regulations, tribes are
theoretically able to request funding through the state(s) in which
the tribe is located. In reality in many cases, though, tribes and
68
associated states do not share priorities and strategies in their fish
and wildlife management present, and to apply for these funds, the
tribe would have submit projects for the approval of the state.
Tribes are highly sensitive to issues of sovereignty, and will not
abrogate their own treaty rights in order to participate in these
programs.
To correct this situation, tribes must be legislatively included
as full participants in the Federal Aids programs.
Endangered Species
The Northern Spotted Owl, Florida panther. Black-footed ferret,
Bald eagle, Mexican Spotted-owl, Colorado sucker, Zuru sucker, and
over 200 races of pacific salmon are a few examples of species listed
or considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. These
species occur on tribal lands, impact tribal resource management
activities, and are utilized and managed by tribes. Currently, there
is no means for formal consultation between tribes and federal
endangered species managers due to a lack of recognition of tribes
as governmental authorities within the Endangered Species Act.
Also, tribes are prohibited from receiving funding for managing
endangered species on their lands under the Endangered Species
Act, for the same reason. Tribes can contribute greatly to the
protection and enhancement of endangered species if allowed. This
legislation should contain provision for tribes to formally participate
in the Endangered Species Act, if they choose to do so.
Jurisdiction
There should be a legislative remedy to the jurisdictional ambiguities
which plague tribes in their attempts to manage their resources.
This should uphold the sovereign integrity of the reservation
boundary by affirming that tribes have jurisdictional authority over
the management of all fisheries and wUdUfe within the exterior
boundaries of the reservation. This authority should apply
regardless of ownership or status of land, including allotted land,
any land taken by any government agency for any reason, or any
land set aside in right-of-way.
Native American Fish and Wildlife Foundation
There should be established a Native American Fish and Wildlife
Foundation patterned after the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to fund tribal fish and wildlife projects.
69
Tribes are drastically underfunded for the enormous task of
managing their fish and wildlife resources. This proposed
legislation presents an outstanding opportunity for the enhancement
of natural resources over which tribes have management or co-
management jurisdiction.
70
NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCIETY
750 Burbank Street • Broomfield. Colorado 80020
Phone: 13031 466-1725 • FAX: 1303) H66-5414
- NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE SOCIETY
CONCEPT PAPER
NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACT
The Native American Fish & Wildlife Society (NAFWS) has
evaluated the existing federal Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation acts to
determine the degree of authorization that tribal governments and
their programs have under their provisions. We have found that,
historically, the tribes have been overlooked in the passage of these
acts and, to this day, have been unable to include tribal provisions to
support the management of fish, wildlife, and recreation resources that
are of benefit to both Indian and non-Indian users.
The Society's original effort to involve tribes in federal
legislative provisions occurred through evaluation of the Wildlife &
Fisheries Enhancement Acts of 1937 and 1950, respectively (commonly
referred to as the Dingell-Johnson/Pittman -Robertson Act). These
Acts provide funding to states and territories but not to tribes and
produce funding in excess of $4 hundred million annually. Similarly, the
latest Wetlands and Conservation Act (Dec. 1989) has very limited
tribal language and again demonstrates that tribes will not be able to
compete with the state and private interests. Other legislation such as
the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT & WILDLIFE COORDINATION
ACT have no specific provisions for support of tribal fish, wildlife, and
recreation management efforts.at this time.
The real issue that confronts the tribes is not only the lack of
funding that occurs for these management purposes, but the lack of
legislative protection that is missing in these acts for tribal sovereign
jurisdiction. Tribal governments should define their roles in each
aspect of fish, wildlife, and recreation management, determine their
funding requirements, establish a means for moving funds to their fish,
wildlife, and recreation management programs, and secure legislative
protection to insure that they can maintain their programs forever.
In this effort, the Society is developing the NATIVE
AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE ENFL\NCEMENT ACT This Act
is designed to provide the authority for tribes to participate in the
existing federal fish, wildlife, and recreation acts analogous to the state
71
NAFWS Concept Paper
Page Two
and US territory governments and will define a source of funding to
meet tribal needs. The participation in the provisions of this Act
should be voluntary on the tribal governments' part, but with such
authorization, it is doubtful that the resource rich tribes would not find
it to their advantage to become involved.
The Society has developed a Tribal Technical Involvement Plan
to demonstrate how tribes could become involved in FISH AND
WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT MANAGEMENT, even sharing in the
funding. We are ready to work with tribes to develop similar
comprehensive plans for natural resource economic development,
endangered species, wetlands, etc., but feel that this plarming process
must lead to a permanent piece of legislation to protect those tribal
interests that are being developed. TTie Society cannot seoire such
legislation in and of itself because tribal goverrunents retain such
authority as sovereign nations. We can technically support the process
as the tribes request..
We are, therefore, asking tribal governments to become
involved in a process of oversight hearings and legislation
development. The Senate Select Subcommittee on Indian Affairs has
tentatively agreed to assist in the hearings and in developing the
Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act. A resolution of
support of this effort by your organization will assist in beginning this
process but, eventually, testimony by tribal leaders will be required to
pass such legislation.
PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACT
The purpose of this Act is to guarantee tribal goveniments full
participation in the management of fisheries, wildlife, and recreational
resources on Tribal lands and within ceded territories as defined by
court action under Tribal treaty rights cases. And to further provide
72
NAFWS Concept Paper
Page Three
the funding and the means to fund Tribal professional management
programs within the context of existing and future federal fish, wildlife
and recreation management initiatives, acts and programs to insure a
government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the
federal government, into perpetuity.
The following Titles are to be enacted to provide the
authorization for Tribal Government fish, wildlife and recreation
management programs to participate in the professional management of
their Tribal resources.
Wetlands Protection and Waterfowl Management:
This Title will provide for direct involvement of Tribes in the
protection and preservation of Tribal wetlands by their specific
inclusion in all current or plaimed federal wetlands or waterfowl
programs.
Subsistence and Recreational Fisheries:
This Title will provide for direct involvement by Tribes in all
current or planned federal fisheries management programs. The Tribes
will be authorized to participate on an equal basis in national and
international anadromous fisheries management, inland sport and
subsistence fisheries management decision making process and in the
development of Tribal Aquaculture Economic Development
opportunities.
Endangered Species:
This Title wUl provide for Tribal professional management of
endangered species of plants and animcds occurring on or around
Tribal reservation lands, ceded territories and /or usual and accustomed
areas of Tribal interest by opening the Endangered Species Act to
Tribal participation.
73
NAFWS Concept Paper
Page Four
Wildlife Coordination:
This Title will provide for the consultation and coordination
of state, federal, and private sector with Tribal Governments in
management of resources on or near Tribal reservations, ceded
territories, and within usual and accustomed Tribal areas by opening
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to Tribal participation. This
provision will form the basis for comprehensive land use planning by
Tribal Governments and will require that management entities consult
directly with Tribes when their management activities will potentially
affect Tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and /or resource management
plans
Self-Determination Management of Fish and Wildlife Resources:
Under provisions of this Title, Tribes will be authorized to
select the management mechanisms best suited for their individual fish,
wildlife and recreation management requirements. Current use of BIA
as the primary agency to deliver funds to Tribal fish, wildlife and
recreation management programs overlooks EL. 93-638 Indian Self-
Determination requirements. Alternative avenues for provision of
assistance to Tribes through entities such as the US Fish &Wildlife
Service (USFWS) would be opened.
Distribution of Wildlife Parts:
Provisions imder this section will enhance and clarify the
degree and level of participation by Tribal Governments in the
procurement of wildlife parts for religious, cultural, and medicinal
purposes.
Integrated Resource Management:
Through this Title, the Tribes wiU require a formalization of
integrated resource management planning for the management of Tribal
natural resources.
74
NAFWS Concept Paper
Page Five
Indian Education and Training:
Under provisions of this Title, Tribal Governments will be
authorized to participate in national education and training programs
for fish, wildlife, recreation and environmental protection programs
under the USFWS and the US Department of Education.
Natural Resource Employment:
Provisions in this Title will authorize Tribes to participate in
employment generating national programs, specifically to enhance
resource management development within the tribal government
structure and for tribal resource benefits.
Funding of Native American Programs:
This Section will authorize the funding necessary to implement
the management programs of Tribal fish, wildlife and recreation
resources. There will be authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000
annually for the maintenance of a permanent professional Tribal fish,
wildlife and recreation management program from sources outside of
the current BIA budget. Federal taxations on minerals and outdoor
recreation equipment could be targeted for such revenue.
75
1 NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE
2 ENHANCEMENT ACT
3
4
5
A BILL
8
9 To guarantee Tribal Governments full participation in the
10 management of fisheries, wildlife, and recreational resources on
11 Tribal lands and within ceded territories as defined by court action
12 under Tribal treaty rights cases. And to further provide the funding
13 and the means to fund Tribal professional management programs
14 within the context of existing and future federal fish, wildlife and
15 recreation management initiatives, acts and programs to insure a
16 government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the
17 federal government, into perpetuity.
18
19
20 SHORT TITLE
21
22 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Native American
23 Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1991."
24 SECTION 2. The following Titles are to be enacted to
25 provide the authorization for Tribal Government fish, wildlife and
26 recreation management programs to participate in the professional
27 management of their Tribal resources.
28
29
76
1 Title I
2 Wetlands Protection and Waterfowl Management: This Title will
3 provide for direct involvement of Tribal professional management
4 programs in the protection and preservation of Tribal wetlands and
5 the provision of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989; and
6 specifically calls for the expansion of the Wetlands Conservation
7 Council to a ten-member board of which one representative will be
8 a Tribal delegate appointed by the Secretary of the Interior in
9 consultation with Tribal Governments. This Title further provides
10 for direct Tribal professional management involvement in the North
11 American Waterfowl Management Planning process and
12 implementation programs for waterfowl management such as the
13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 703-711).
14
15 Title II
16 Subsistence and Recreational Fisheries: This Title will provide for
17 direct involvement by Tribal professional management personnel in
18 the planning and implementation of professional programs to
19 manage Tribal Government fisheries interests for Tribal member
20 subsistence, religious, cultural, commercial and Indian and no-Indian
21 recreational purposes. The Tribes will be authorized to participate
22 on an equal basis in the implementation of the National Recreational
23 Fisheries Policy; will maintain direct involvement in national and
24 international anadromous fisheries management, inland sport and
77
1 subsistence fisheries management decision making process as
2 represented by the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, et al); to
3 participate in the development of Tribal Aquaculture Economic
4 Development opportunities through the national planning process
5 being initiated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), private
6 sector and other state and federal agencies; and will be entitled to
7 participate in current federal programs to enhance the public
8 awareness of fisheries management requirements and responsible
9 utilization of fisheries resources for recreational purposes.
10
11 Title III
12 Endangered Species: This Title will provide for Tribal professional
13 management of endangered species of plants and animals occurring
14 on or around Tribal reservation lands, ceded territories and /or
15 usual and accustomed areas of Tribal interest. The Tribal
16 Governments, under this Title, will be encouraged in the
17 development of endangered species inventories, maintenance and
18 rehabilitation plans, protective codes and ordinances, and regulatory
19 systems to further the interests of national Endangered Species
20 legislation. Tribes under this Title will be authorized to participate
21 in the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC
22 1539), Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 663a), Marine Mammal
23 Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1371-1383), et al, as an equal partner
24 with the USFWS and state governments in management of those
78
1 endangered plants and animals of common interest to all parties.
2 This Act will allow Tribal participation in all federal statutes and
3 acts pertaining to fish and wildlife management to foster
4 coordination and cooperation between Tribes and other
5 management entities.
6
7 Title IV
8 Wildlife Coordination: This Title will provide for the consultation
9 and coordination of state, federal, and private sector with Tribal
10 Governments in management of resources on or near Tribal
11 reservations, ceded territories, and within usual and accustomed
12 Tribal areas. This provision will form the basis for comprehensive
13 land use planning by Tribal Governments and professional
14 management staff and will require that management entities consult
15 directly with Tribes when their management activities will
16 potentially affect Tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and/ or resource
17 management plans. Entities such as the Army Corp of Engineers,
18 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
19 USFWS, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce,
20 Bureau of Reclamation, etc., will be mandated to consult with Tribal
21 Governments prior to conducting their activities in the proximity of
22 Tribal lands and amendment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
23 Act (16 use §661) may be considered by this provision. This
24 provision will mandate full implementation of U.S. National Park
79
1 Service and USFWS policy, as well as other agencies, for dealing
2 with Tribes on a government-to-governrnent basis. By this
3 provision. Tribes will be able to develop comprehensive land use
4 plans and zoning codes and ordinances to protect the integrity of
5 Tribal resources while taking into consideration private, state, and
6 federal interests within their area of jurisdiction.
7
8 Title V
9 Self-Determination Management of Fish and Wildlife Resources:
10 Under provisions of this Title, Tribes will be authorized to select
11 the management mechanisms best suited for their individual fish,
12 wildUfe and recreation management requirements. Options for
13 management are based upon a universal Trust responsibility that all
14 federal departments and agencies have to Tribal Governments.
15 Current use of BIA as the primary agency to deliver funds to Tribal
16 fish, wildlife and recreation management programs overlooks P.L.
17 93-638 Indian Self-Determination requirements as amended in 1988.
18 Alternatives to the current system could be through the USFWS
19 "Indian Fish and Wildlife Assistance Program," the "Federal Fish and
20 Wildlife Enhancement Aides Program," administration by the
21 USFWS, direct PL. 93-638 funding through the USFWS, block grant
22 programs through agencies such as the Administration for Native
23 Americans, direct funding through the Native American Fish &
24 Wildlife Society (NAFWS), wetlands initiatives through the
80
1 Department of Agriculture, etc., or a combination of the above
2 systems to ensure Tribal selection of the appropriate management
3 support mechanism.
4
5 Title VI
6 Distribution of Wildlife Farts: Provisions under this section will
7 define the degree and level of participation by Tribal Governments
8 in the procurement of wildlife parts for religious, cultural, and
9 medicinal purposes. In respect to the Religious Freedom Act of 1982,
10 Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 663a), Marine Mammal Protection
11 Act of 1972 (16 USC 1371-1383), Endangered Species Act of 1972 (16
12 USC 1539), etc.. Tribal members retain the right to possess wildlife
13 parts and in certain situations, endangered species parts. This
14 provision will require that a substantial portion of the animals
15 currently being stored in the Federal Repository at Ashland,
16 Oregon, be turned over to the Tribal Governments who will be
17 responsible for the distribution of the appropriate parts to its
18 membership in association with the NAFWS, et al. Under this
19 provision, a concise means of delivery of these parts to the Tribes
20 will be required of the USFWS to facilitate use by Tribal members.
21
22
23
24
81
1 Title VII
2 Integrated Resource Management: Through this Title, the Tribes
3 will require a formalization of integrated resource management
4 planning through development of an annual summit meeting, et al,
5 between federal departments, agencies with the Department of
6 Interior, and Tribal technical and political leadership. Federal policy
7 issues, long term planning, and fish, wildlife and recreation priorities
8 will be developed to facilitate long-term permanent Tribal
9 management of fish, wildlife and recreation resources. Issues of
10 importance to Tribes such as relationships between wildlife,
11 forestry, minerals, waters, mining, environmental protection, and
12 resources education and training will be considered through this
13 provision. Under Integrated Resource Management Planning
14 (IRMP), all entities concerned with Tribal natural resource
15 utilization would sit as equal partners at the resoure management
16 table. Resource allocation would be decided by the Tribe in the
17 public planning process, and implemented by the natural resource
18 management entity under Tribal supervision. Formal adoption of
19 IRMP by the Tribes will facilitate the establishment of formal
20 relationships between Tribal national fish, wildlife, recreation and
21 environmental protection organizations such as the Native American
22 Fish & Wildlife Society, National Indian Education Association
23 (NIEA), Inter-Tribal Timber Council (ITC), Inter-Tribal Agriculture
24 Council (ITAC), Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), Native
82
1 American Rights Fund (NARF), Americans for Indian Opportunity
2 (AIO), American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES),
3 Inter-Tribal Environmental Protection Organization, American
4 Indian Resources Institute (AIRI), and the Federal Government.
5
6 Title VIII
7 Indian Education and Training: Under provisions of this Title,
8 Tribal Governments v^ill be authorized to participate in national
9 education and training programs for fish, wildlife, recreation and
10 environmental protection programs under the USFWS, such as the
11 National Fisheries Academy and the national Environmental
12 Education and Training Center as well as on-site wildlife training
13 will focus on developing Indian people into professional managers,
14 technicians, and program administrators. Agencies and departments
15 responsible for environmental management such as the
16 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy,
17 Corp of Engineers, Department of Interior, USFWS, National Park
18 Service (NPS), BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, etc., will participate in
19 education and training of Tribal members for careers in fish, wildlife,
20 recreation, and environmental protection. The Department of
21 Education will develop support programs to fund fish, wildlife,
22 recreation and environmental protection education to encourage
23 formal education of Tribal members in the technical and academic
24 community. Incentives under this provision must be developed to
8
83
1 encourage Indian graduates from education and training to return to
2 Tribes to work with Tribal Governments in management of Tribal
3 resources. Special incentives to Tribal Governments must be
4 developed to prioritize their educational needs to support fish,
5 wildlife, recreation and environmental protection education /training
6 for their membership. Incentives must also be developed to allow
7 Tribal Governments to successfully compete for placement of Tribal
8 members educated and trained under these provisions. Current
9 thinking by federal agencies that Tribal members are "minorities"
10 and that employment of these qualified individuals away from Tribal
11 Governments perpetuates the lack of qualified people that Tribes
12 currently experience.
13
14 Title IX
15 Natural Resource Employment: Provisions in this Title will
16 authorize Tribes to participate in employment generating national
17 programs, specifically to enhance resource management develop-
18 ment. Programs like the Job Training Partnership Act 0TPA), the
19 Youth Conservation Corps, American Conservation Corp, et al, must
20 all have provisions to authorize Tribal Governments to participate
21 in putting their people to work in fish, wildlife, recreation, and
22 environmental protection programs. On-the-job training, work
23 experience projects, and professional intern programs must be
24 developed to accelerate the rate of employment of all ages of Indian
84
1 people in socially acceptable activities heretofore unavailable within
2 Tribal management structures. Permanent positions in professional
3 management programs will have to be developed to achieve Tribal
4 self-sufficiency in providing jobs for a variety of membership groups
5 as well as to defend the integrity of the Tribal resource base.
6
7 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
8
9 SECTION 3. Funding of Native American Programs: This
10 Section will authorize the funding necessary to implement the
11 management programs of Tribal fish, wildlife and recreation
12 resources. Current funding levels are totally inadequate to meet the
13 needs of resource management that Tribes are facing. The process
14 for obtaining funding through direct government appropriations
15 fails to provide long term stability to the management process.
16 Under the provisions of this Act, a system to fund Tribal programs
17 will be defined that will provide revenues to fund these activities
18 through elements currently available to Tribal Governments and
19 those that have historically been unavailable. Tribal Governments
20 have the ability to tax in certain instances (e.g., liquor, minerals,
21 trespass fees, etc.), to require permits for resource utilization (e.g.,
22 hunting licenses, recreational fishing permits, camping fees, etc.) and
23 to impose severance taxes on mineral and forest resources. They
24 also have vested interests in federal funds such as Dingell-
10
85
1 Johnson /Pittman-Robertson/Wallop-Breaux in that they are not
2 exempt from paying federal teixes on sporting equipment, gasoline,
3 boats, motors, and trailers, etc., and they do provide significant
4 opportunities for recreation to the general public. These taxes have
5 traditionally been reserved for use by states and territories, but
6 constitute a model from which a similar mechanism can be developed
7 to support the Tribal funding necessary to drive this Act. Of
8 paramount importance to the funding programs is the ability to keep
9 fish, wildlife and recreation funds in the fish, wildlife and recreation
10 Tribal programs in competition with all other Tribal needs. The
11 existing Federal Aides Program can again serve as a model upon
12 which Tribal funding can be based. The use of federal funds to
13 match Tribal contributions can provide political stability to the fish,
14 wildlife and recreation management programs. Loss of Native
15 American Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Act (NAFWE Act) funding if
16 Tribes reprioritize their existing fish, wildlife and recreation federal
17 monies or earned revenues from license sales, etc., could be a
18 powerful tool to assist Tribal Governments in the decision making
19 process.
20 Non-Tribal funding of the NAFWE Act is justifiable as a
21 result of key contributions that Tribal Government resources are
22 making to the nation as a whole. Fish, wildlife and recreation
23 resources are providing many opportunities for the general public
24 to recreate and earn a living through guiding and tourism related
11
86
1 activities on or around Tribal lands. Endangered and Threatened
2 plant and animal species such as the Florida Panther, Grizzly Bear,
3 Black Footed Ferret, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Mexican Spotted
4 Owl, and Apache Trout, are frequently found within Tribal
5 jurisdictions and are Tribal resources. Mineral deposits such as coal,
6 gas, oil, uranium and others are being removed from Tribal trust
7 lands with no reinvestment of revenues for environmental
8 rehabilitation nor financial reinvestment in fish, wildlife and
9 recreation management programs for permanent renewable economic
10 development opportunities to Tribal governments.
11 Provisions under this section will devise a funding
12 mechanism to incorporate permanent long term financial resources to
13 consistently fund Tribal management initiatives.
14 There will be authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000
15 annually for the maintenance of a permanent professional Tribal
16 fish, wildlife and recreation management program. The Secretary of
17 the Interior is hereby directed to develop a mechanism for direct
18 funding of Tribal Governments for the purposes of carrying out the
19 provisions of this Act.
12
87
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Poynter.
Mr. DuBray?
STATEMENT OF FRED DuBRAY
Mr. DuBray. Good morning.
My name is Fred DuBray. I'm the Director of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe's Bison Enhancement Project, and President of
the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to present testimony before this
subcommittee on behalf of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe mem-
bership and the Inter-Trib£il Bison Cooperative.
We appreciate your concern regarding the management and pres-
ervation of our precious fish and wildlife resources, and strongly
support the drafting and passage of legislation that will enhance
our management capabihty and ensure protection of our sovereign
jurisdiction.
Throughout the past several decades, management of our trust
lands has been primarily focused on livestock production in the
Plains area.
The tribe has been influenced by heavily subsidized agricultural
programs that tend to ignore provisions for fish, wildlife and rec-
reational management, consequently putting these resources in se-
rious jeopardy.
More important, the lack of legislative protection of these fish
and wildlife resources threatens our sovereign jurisdiction, as illus-
trated by the current litigation with the State of South Dakota in
South Dakota vs. Bourland and Rousseau.
This case arises fi-om the state of South Dakota's assertion that
the tribe lacks the capability to adequately manage the taken area
lands along the Missouri River within the boundaries of the res-
ervation.
This dispute has directly evolved fi*om the lack of legislative rec-
ognition and fiinding of the tribe as a full participant in fish, wild-
life, £ind recreational management.
And as typically in most state-tribal disputes, the prescribed so-
lution by the state is to assume jurisdiction, thus undermining our
sovereign jurisdiction.
And that's one of the things that it leads to is not providing this
legislative recognition and full support of funding.
And in 1991, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe prioritized buffalo
as an essential wildlife resource, and implemented restoration ef-
forts based on traditional vedues, integrated with modem manage-
ment principles.
This recognition of buffalo as a critical species within the prairie
ecosystem not only has major implications for the restoration of the
prairie, but also for the socioeconomic, cultural, and spiritual well-
being of our tribe.
Because of the intrinsic relationship between the Plains Indian
culture and the buffalo culture, the near decimation of the buffalo
was mutually devastating to the Plains tribes. Our effort to restore
these buffalo to our tribal Isinds provides us with a culturally sound
focal point and spearheads our overall ecosystem approach.
88
The restoration of buffalo has renewed hope in many tribal mem-
bers and has inspired the Tribe to develop an overall prairie man-
agement plan.
This prairie management plan was developed by an interdiscipli-
nary team of tribal, federal, and environmental representatives,
and presents a dramatic departure from control of prairie dogs by
poisoning.
It also covers 2.8 million acres of prairie encompassed by reserva-
tion boundaries.
The primary goal of this prairie management plan it to allow
prairie dogs, buffalo, black-footed ferrets, eagles, and many other
wildlife species to coexist with livestock production and incorporate
management techniques that are directed at multiple use.
This alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs will restore, en-
hance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem for the benefit of our fu-
ture generations.
However, in order to implement these plans, adequate funding is
absolutely essential, but currently unavailable. Although we have
enjoyed widespread support fi-om the BIA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and several environmental groups, as well as the House
Appropriations Committee, and responded to the congressional di-
rective to develop an alternative plan to poisoning, we have yet to
receive funding.
Because the BIA lacks funding, and the tribe is ineligible for the
funding granted to states by the Endangered Species Act, or the
FedergQ Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, this project can
only be conducted with the support of Congress through special ap-
propriations or other legislative action.
Our current management enhancement efforts illustrate the fact
that all federal fish, wildlife, and recreational legislation and aid
that exists today has systematically excluded tribal governments
from the funding mechanisms that would allow implementation of
these culturally sensitive and environmentally sound management
objectives.
Our attempts to receive funding through the Endangered Species
Act and the Federal Aid Programs to states have been strongly op-
posed by the states, who believe that making these funds available
to tribes would diminish the availability of their funds, and thus
threaten their management capability and control.
We therefore need a funding mechanism that allows funds to be
distributed directly to tribal governments, rather than expanding
the federal agencies to carry out these management functions,
which tends to perpetuate tribal dependence on our federal govern-
ment.
As the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes Bison Enhancement Project
illustrates, buffalo can and are being successfully utilized by tribes
as a culturally sound focal point in the restoration and enhance-
ment of reservation ecologies.
A cooperative plan for restoring buffalo on tribal lands is being
coordinated by the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, which is an or-
ganization consisting of 24 member tribes.
This cooperative effort to restore bison on Indian reservations is
aimed at restoring the reservation ecologies in a manner that is
both acceptable and appreciated by respective tribal members.
89
Most important, the restoration of buffalo to Indian people re-
news hope, and is perhaps the last viable effort that can protect
tribal lands from the ravages of mismanagement, and quite pos-
sibly offers the last opportunity for grassroots tribal members to re-
capture the spiritual and cultural essence of their being and reaf-
firm the traditional values that are so important to the preserva-
tion of their culture.
Because buffalo were the economic base of many tribes in the
past, restoration of buffalo to the Indian community also offers a
tremendous opportunity for economic development within a cul-
tural framework.
Although Congress responded to the InterTribal Cooperative's re-
quest for funding and appropriated $400,000 in 1992, $450,000 in
1993, that falls considerably short of the $2 million that the 24
tribes requested and needed in order to keep this thing going.
Therefore, increased and continued funding is absolutely essen-
tial to ensure the success of this important restoration effort.
In closing, I would like to remind the Committee of the critical
role that fish and wildlife resources play in the daily lives of Indian
people. For too long, Indian people have been denied the oppor-
tiuiity to develop and manage their own resources.
The projects we have presented in this testimony are based on
our traditional world view, which has become a driving rationale
for natural resource management espoused by environmental ex-
perts across the world.
We firmly believe that legislative action which recognizes tribes
as full participants in fish, v^ldlife, and recreational management,
will enable us to assume our rightfiil role in land stewardship and
resource management.
We respectfully request your recommendations to the Appropria-
tions Committee for mnding these most important projects.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. DuBray and Prairie Management
Plan follow:]
90
TESTIMONY
TO THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SUB-COMMITTEE
ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
BY
FRED DUBRAY
MEMBER, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE
PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is grateful for the opportunity to
present testimony before your sub-committee on behalf of the Tribe's
membership and as a member Tribe of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative.
We applaud the formation of this much needed sub-committee and
appreciate your concern regarding the management and preservation of our
precious fish and wildlife resources. We strongly support he drafting and
passage of legislation that will enhance our management capability and
ensure protection of tribal jurisdiction over our fish and wildlife resources.
Throughout the past several decades the management of our trust
lands has been focused on livestock production, which is quite common on
most reservations throughout the Plains region. Being located in an area
where agriculture is the primary economic activity, the Tribe has been
influenced by the heavily subsidized agricultural programs that tend to
ignore provisions for fish, wildlife and recreational management,
consequently putting these resources in serious jeopardy. This lack of
support for our fish and wildlife resources has curtailed our efforts and
stunted the development of our management capabilities.
More importantly, the lack of legislative protection for our fish and
wildlife resources threatens our sovereign jurisdiction over these resources as
illustrated by current litigation with the state in South Dakota vs Bouriand
and Rousseau. This case arises fi-om the state of South Dakota's assertion
that the tribe lacks the capability to adequately manage the "taken area"
lands along the Missouri River within the boundaries of the reservation.
This dispute has directly evolved fi-om the lack of legislative
acknowledgment of the tribe as a fixll participant in fish, wildlife, and
recreation management, and the lack of necessary fiinding. As typical in
most disputes between tribes and states, the state's prescribed solution is to
assume jurisdiction and management control of the resources in question
and consequently diminish Tribal authority and undermine the Tribe's
sovereign status. In order to insure our government to government
91
relationship with the Federal government, it is essential that legislative action
guarantees the Tribal government's ilill participation in the management of
fisheries, wildlife, and recreational resources on Tribal lands and within
ceded territories as defined by Treaty rights and associated court action
regarding Tribal Treaty rights cases, as well as applicable Executive Orders
and Congressional Acts.
In 1991 the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe prioritized buffalo as an
essential wildlife resource and implemented restoration efforts based on the
Lakota world view, which recognizes that the inter-relationship and intrinsic
value of all native species is necessary for the health and harmony of the
environment. The recognifion of buffalo as a critical species within the
prairie ecosystem not only has major implications for the restoration of the
prairie, but also for the socio-economic, cultural, and spiritual well being of
the tribe. Because of the intrinsic relationship between the Plains Indian
culture and the buffalo culture, the near decimation of the buffalo vvas
mutually devastating to the Plains tribes. Because buffalo are a central
element to the prairie, as well as to the Lakota culture, our efforts to restore
buffalo to our Tribal land provides us with a culturally sound focal point and
spearheads our overall ecosystem approach. The Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe's Bison Enhancement Project successfully integrates the importance of
buffalo to the Lakota culture, religion, socio-economic well-being, and
environmental health, which are all necessary components to sustainable
natural resource development. The restoration of buffalo has renewed hof)€
to many tribal members and has inspired the Tribe to develop a long-range
restoration plan which includes the entire ecosystem within the reservation
boundaries.
As a direct result of our buffalo restoration plan and in response to a
congressional directive for the BIA to work with Tribes and in consultation
with the USFWS to develop alternative plans for prairie dog control, the
Tribe developed the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's "Prairie Management
Plan." This comprehensive plan, developed by an interdisciplinary team of
tribal, federal, and environmental representatives, presents a dramatic
departure from control of prairie dogs by pwisoning and covers 2.8 million
acres of prairie encompassed by the reservation boundaries. The primary
goal of the Prairie Management Plan is to allow prairie dogs, buffalo, black
footed ferrets, eagles and many other wildlife species to coexist with
livestock production and incorporate management techniques that are
directed at multiple use. This alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs will
92
restore, enhance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem for the benefit of our
future generations.
In conjunction with the Prairie Management Plan the Tribe supports
the re-introduction of black-footed ferrets onto the reservation as part of the
alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs. Because black-footed ferrets are a
natural predator of prairie dogs, they too are a necessary component of the
prairie ecosystem. Because black-footed ferrets are an endangered species
Federal law requires that Tribes maintain compliance with the regulatory
portion of the Endangered Species Act. The Tribe has cooperated with
Federal regulations which require the BIA to conduct an Environmental
Impact Statement regarding prairie dog control.
However, in order to implement these plans adequate funding is
absolutely essential, but is currently unavailable. Although we have enjoyed
widespread support from the BIA, USFWS, and several environmental
groups, as well as the House Appropriations Committee, we have yet to
receive funding. Because the BIA lacks funding and the Tribe is ineligible
for the funding granted to states by the Endangered Species Act or the
Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, this project can only be
conducted with the support of Congress through special appropriations or
other legislative action.
We offer these examples of our current management enhancement
efforts to illustrate the fact that all Federal fish, wildlife and recreational
legislation and aid that exists has systematically excluded Tribal
governments from the funding mechanisms that would allow implementation
of these culturally sensitive and environmentally sound management
objectives. Our attempts to receive fiinding through the Endangered Species
Act and the Federal Aid Programs to states have been strongly opposed by
the states who believe that making these funds available to tribe's would
diminish the availability of their funds, and thus threaten their management
capability and control. Therefore, we firmly believe that legislation which
recognizes Tribes as full participants in fish, wildlife, and recreational
management is necessary and long overdue. We also need a fiinding
mechanism that allows funds to be distributed directly to Tribal
governments. Expanding the Federal Agencies to carry out these
management functions will only perpetuate Tribal dependence on the
Federal Government and add nedless layers to governmental bureaucracy.
As the case of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe indicates, buffalo can
and are being utilized by tribes as a focal point in the restoration and
enhancement of reservation ecologies. This effort is being coordinated by
93
the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), an organization consisting of 24
member tribes interested in utilizing bufifalo for ecological restoration on
Tribal lands. Each member tribe of the ITBC has joined and expressed
support of the organization through formal tribal council resolutions.
Although each tribe has their own unique set of spiritual and cultural values
attached to the bison, all recognize the need for re-establishing their intrinsic
relationship with the bufifalo. The cooperative efifort to restore bison on
Indian reservations is aimed at restoring the reservation ecologies in a
manner that is acceptable and appreciated by the respective Tribal members.
Most importantly, the restoration of bufifalo to Indian people renews
hope and is perhaps the last viable efifort that can protect tribal lands from
the ravages of mismanagement, and quite possibly ofifers the last opportunity
for "grass roots" Tribal members to recapture the spritual and cultural
essence of their being and re-afiQrm the traditional values that are so
important to the preservation of their culture. Because bufifalo were the
economic base of many Tribes in the past, restoration of bufifalo to the
Indian community also ofifers a tremendous opportunity for economic
development within a cultural framework.
Although many private producers are rightfully raising bison as a
profitable enterprise, there is an associated move to domesticate bison,
strictly for commercial benefits. There is a tremendous amount of scientific
evidence, as well as traditional Tribal knowledge, which indicates that bison
must be protected as a wildlife resource in order for them to contribute to the
preservation of the ecosystem. Just as Indian people themselves must be
allowed to develop within their own cultural framework in order to
successfrilly interact with their environment, the membership of the ITBC
recognizes that buffalo have the same need,and have cooperatively agreed to
facilitate that efifort on their behalf Just as salmon are recognized as an
issue of subsistence and cultural survival to tlie tribes in the Pacific
Northwest, the restoration of bufifalo to Tribal lands is essential to the
member Tribes of the ITBC.
Although Congress responded to our request for funding and
appropriated $400,000 toward our efforts in 1992 and $450,000 in 1993 it
falls considerably short of the $2,000,000 necessary to fund all 24 of the
Tribal projects submitted through the ITBC. We are grateful for the funding
received, but only 1 0 Tribes have been able to secure funding with the
$850,000 appropriated so far, which places the remaining projects on hold
until future fiinds become available. If all 24 of the Tribal projects could
secure initial start-up funding, the current appropriation level of $450,000 to
68-141 - 93 - 4
94
$500,000 could adequately supplement those projects in need and insure the
success of this important restoration efifort.
In closing, I would like to remind the commitee of the critical role that
fish and wildlife resources play in the daily lives of Indian people. For too
long, Indian people have been denied the opportunity to develop and manage
their own resources. The projects we have presented in this testimony are
based on our traditional world view, which has become a driving rationale
for natural resource management espoused by environmental experts across
the world. We firmly believe that legislative action, which recognizes Tribes
as full participants in fish, wildlife and recreational management, will enable
us to assume our rightful place in land stewardship.
95
PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX
RESERVATION
MAY 1992
96
LIST OF PREPARERS
Croxen, Michael
DuBray, Fred
Eisner. Sherry
Elclund. Daniel*
Lilly. Wayland G.
Parr, Kenneth
Rousseau. Narcisse
Spotted Elk. Clara
Supervisory* Range Conservationist.
Cheyenne River Agency. Bureau of n.-iian
Affairs
Coordinator. Administration for Native
Americans, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Wildlife Biologist. Administration for Native
Americans, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Pierre, SD
Area Range Conservationist, Aberdeen
Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Area Wildlife Biologist, Aberdeen Area
Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Director, Game, Fish and Parks
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Writing Consultant
Lame Deer, Montana
• Corrections made 15 June 1992
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe acknowledges and thanks
the University of Nebraska and Dr. Scott Hygnstrom for
permission to reproduce an original work of art by
Mark E. Marcuson.
97
wBm 'Tim asmnm^s mtim mmjz mmm^^ismm
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to urgent circumstances regarding the
Federal Government's trust responsibility to manage
reservation lands and the need to maintain compliance with
existing legislation regarding endangered species and
environmental policy, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
proposes to implement a pilot range improvement project
entitled "Prairie Management Plan".
The proposed project presents a dramatic departure
from traditional control of black-tailed prairie dogs
{Cynomys ludovicianus) by poisoning on the Cheyenne River
Reservation. For years, prairie dogs have been viewed as
"pests"; however, the near extinction of black-footed
ferrets (Mustela nigripes) , which rely totally on prairie
dog towns as habitat and prairie dogs for food, has fostered
a recognition of the delicate environmental relationships
and biodiversity necessary for a healthy prairie ecosystem.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a formal
opinion: poisoning prairie dogs on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Reservation will jeopardize the survival and/or recovery of
black-footed ferrets. Additionally, Defenders of Wildlife
and the Sierra Club have threatened litigation if prairie
dogs are poisoned without consideration to existing
legislation. Thus, poisoning alone is no longer an
acceptable management tool for prairie dog control.
Studies have shown that prairie dogs alone are not
responsible for range deterioration. The primary cause of
prairie ecosystem degradation, and the associated loss of
species diversity, has been a lack of funding to change
outmoded range management practices. Outdated methods
encourage overgrazing and conditions that give rise to
prairie dog colonization. Notwithstanding this fact,
livestock production is currently the leading industry on
many Indian reservations, and will be for the foreseeable
future. Thus, the challenge is to incorporate management
techniques that are directed at multiple use.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's goal is to restore,
enhance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem on 2.8 million
acres encompassed by the reservation boundaries. This
proposal is based on Lakota tradition, which recognizes the
intrinsic value of all life forms in a healthy and
harmonious environment. Developed by an Interdisciplinary
Team of tribal, federal and environmental representatives to
reflect traditional Lakota views and improved range
management techniques, this approach allows prairie dogs and
98
many other wildlife species to coexist with livestock
production.
Benefits of the "Prairie Management Plan" will include
the following: reduce the need for poisoning prairie dogs
every three to five years; allow for the coexistence of
prairie dogs with livestock; provide for the potential
reintroduction of the black-footed ferret by compensating
landowners for retaining prairie dog towns; maintain and
enhance wildlife diversity, including those species
associated with prairie dog towns; aid the recovery of
threatened and endangered species; enhance populations of
candidate species to prevent listing; and, increase the
overall productivity of the range resource.
The management techniques proposed in the pilot
project have been successfully demonstrated by private
landowners, but the Tribe and individual Indian cattle
operators are unable to implement these strategies due to a
lack of funding. If funded, this project will encourage the
application of these management techniques on all lands
within the reservation boundary, and on other reservations
with similar management challenges. Thus, in addition to
the compelling Endangered Species Act requirements for the
project, there is considerable potential to demonstrate that
improved management of prairie ecosystems is not only
environmentally desirable, but also economically beneficial.
Funding of $10,390,960 is required for a period of
five years to achieve range restoration. This proposal,
which not only includes range improvements (dams, wells, and
fencing), but also management of endangered species and
public education, costs only $7.00/acre for 1.4 million
acres over a five-year period; poisoning is about
$12.00/acre in reoccuring costs. Specific objectives for
the first year cost $1.45/acre, or a total of $2,220,192.
After the prairie ecosystem is restored, the annual
management costs will be minimal.
Because the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) lacks
funding, and the Tribe is ineligible for the funding granted
to states by the Endangered Species Act or the Federal Aid
in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the project can only
be conducted with the support of Congress through special
appropriations. The Tribe suggests that funds be added to
and "earmarked" from the BIA's Range Management and Fish,
Wildlife and Parks programs. The project responds to the
Congressional appropriation directive to the Department of
Interior that the BIA reorganize its management efforts
whenever possible to suspend poisoning and develop other
alternatives for prairio dog management. More important,
however, it assures compliance with the Endangered Species
Act and the federal government's trust responsibility to
Indian Tribes.
11
99
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
Lakota World View 1
Prairie Dog Poisoning/Overgrazing 2
Environmental Assessment Issues 4
Chronology of Events 5
"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" APPROACH 8
Environmental Impact Statement 9
"Prairie Management Plan" Strategies 9
1. Development of Adequate Water on Rangelands . 9
2. Range Unit Fencing to Accommodate Grazing
Rotation 10
3. Wildlife and Fish Habitat 10
4. Endangered, Threatened or Candidate Species . 11
5. Public Education 12
6. Interdisciplinary Team 13
7. Bison Enhancement Project 13
RESULTS AND BENEFITS 14
Environmental 14
Tribal 14
Federal 14
National 15
BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 16
Year 1 16
Year 2-5 17
APPENDICES 18
1 Interdisciplinary Team Members 19
2 Cheyenne River Tribal Resolutions 20
3 "Prairie Management Plan" Budget 25
4 "Prairie Management Plan" Position Descriptions . 26
111
100
CM nn cMsi^i^ffiis Mwn mmm. ^mmwMmm
INTRODUCTION
"Prairie Management Plan" is a proposed project based
on Lakota cultural traditions and improved range management
techniques which will result in restoration of the prairie
ecosystem and the coexistence of prairie dogs and other
wildlife species with livestock production on the Cheyenne
River Sioux Reservation. Although the catalyst has been the
matter of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)
and black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) , the project is
directed at correcting a much broader problem -- outmoded
range management practices geared towards the single purpose
of cattle production.
For most of this century, prairie dogs have been
systematically and successfully targeted for elimination
through poisoning by livestock producers and state and
federal agencies. Success has been measured by the 98%
reduction in acres of prairie dog towns throughout the west:
the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) is listed as a
threatened species. A tragic result of the loss of prairie
dog habitat has been the near extinction of the black- footed
ferret which relies exclusively on prairie dog towns for
food and habitat. In 1967, the black-footed ferret was
listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
In addition, several other endangered, threatened or
candidate species on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation
are linked to prairie dogs or their habitat.
"Prairie Management Plan" is a unique response
to federal mandates to facilitate black-footed ferret
recovery. The pilot project will accomplish the goal of
enhancing the prospects for recovery of the black- footed
ferret in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. It
will also facilitate restoration of the prairie ecosystem,
an improved range resource for livestock production, and
enhanced populations of many other wildlife species.
Further, it will increase the capability for the government
to fully exercise its trust responsibility to effectively
manage reservation trust lands for the benefit of the Tribe
and individual Indians.
LAKOTA WORLD VIEW
The Lakota world view and cultural beliefs are
holistic -- based on a recognition of the interrelationship
101
and intrinsic value of all species, which is necessary for
the health and harmony of the environment (i.e.
biodiversity). This traditional world view has become a
driving rationale for natural resource management espoused
by environmental experts across the world. The Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe believes that they have an opportunity and
an obligation to exercise leadership in land stewardship.
The pilot project is an example of integrating Native
American values with scientific techniques to promote
restoration of prairie ecosystems.
PRAIRIE DOG POISONING/OVERGRAZING
For years, the federal government has promoted
agriculture (principally cattle production) on western
reservations as a means of economic development and
utilizing the prairie grasslands. This policy has been
successful in that grasslands are the most significant
natural resource, and ranching is the leading industry on
the Cheyenne River Reservation. It has been a historical
assumption of the ranching community that concentrations of
prairie dog colonies pose a problem by competing with cattle
for forage and detracting from grazing and cropland
productivity .
In the past the BIA, states and individual cattle
operators have subscribed to poisoning efforts because of a
lack of understanding of ecosystem dynamics, as well as lack
of funding to implement long-term and capital intensive
range improvements. Until recently, for example. Congress
has appropriated approximately $400,000 per year to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for prairie dog poisoning.
Studies indicate that poisoning of prairie dogs and
the type of poisons used has directly contributed to the
decline of the black-footed ferret. Black-footed ferrets
require a certain threshold size and occupancy of prairie
dog towns to survive. The extensive use of poisoning to
reduce prairie dogs, together with cultivation and
urbanization, have caused a lack of suitable habitat for
ferrets.
Historically, prairie dog colonization (and associated
prairie ecosystem diversity) was dependent on the buffalo or
bison (Bison bison). Buffalo, following their circular
migratory paths, enhanced habitat for prairie dogs by
grazing grasses to suitable heights and creating dust
wallows. The survival of prairie dog towns depended on
buffalo or other grazers keeping grasses short.
Over the years grazing practices (actually overgrazing
of certain areas) have degraded rangelands by reducing the
diversity and density of plants, the natural vegetative
102
barriers and soil conditions which in turn encourages
prairie dog colonization. Further, cattle selectively
forage on desirable grasses, leading to a reduction in the
mix of species. Agricultural lands may be devalued $3-7 per
acre by lending institutions depending on the density of
prairie dog colonies.
Poisoning has averaged $12.00 per acre in reoccurring
costs because applications of rodenticide are only temporary
measures. It has been consistently shown that prairie dogs
will increase to pre-poisoning levels within three to five
years without the implementation of a range improvement
program. The most dramatic example has been on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation where massive poisoning was
conducted in the mid-1980 's only to see a current resurgence
in prairie dog numbers.
Range degradation is primarily related to a lack of
funding for improvements, such as fencing, adequate water
development and planned grazing management necessary to
rotate or limit livestock to prevent overgrazing in certain
areas. Degradation is exacerbated when cattle congregate
near wetlands and riparian zones (particularly during
drought), which also provide important habitat for many
wildlife and fish species.
In summary, the current prairie dog "problem" on
western lands is not a simple matter. Several combined
factors contribute to the problem:
* the historic attitude of agricultural producers
that prairie dogs are an undesirable part of the
ecosystem
* the heretofore accepted practice of poisoning
prairie dogs as a control mechanism has not taken
into account the related effects on the prairie
ecosystem, particularly on the black-footed ferret
and other species which are associated with
prairie dogs
* a reduction of the natural mixed-grass forage and
overall health of the prairie ecosystem is due in
large part to the lack of adequate water, drought
conditions and outdated grazing practices
* overgrazing of the range creates "bare" spots which
enhance prairie dog colonization
Within recent years, the BIA has been promoting
Integrated Natural Resource Management planning on Indian
reservations which encourages multiple use management
directed at both wildlife and agriculture. However, lack of
tribal and BIA funding has impeded progress on this
initiative. Only a few reservations have completed planning
necessary for this management strategy and fewer have
actually implemented the plan. Cheyenne River Reservation
103
does not have this system in place. More significantly,
with the exception of some limited funding for work on the
northern spotted owl (Strlx occidentalls) , the BIA and
Tribes have not received funding to comply with the
Endangered Species Act on trust lands.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ISSUES
The project proposes a solution to a dilemma faced by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs over the management of trust
range resources. On one hand, the BIA has a trust
responsibility to the Tribe to effectively manage trust
lands which currently have unacceptable concentrations of
prairie dog colonies for agricultural production. On the
other hand, the BIA has a responsibility to comply with the
Endangered Species Act as it pertains to the recovery of
endangered and threatened species, such as the black- footed
ferret .
In 1991, the BIA proposed to conduct limited poisoning
of prairie dogs on the Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux
Reservations and completed an Environmental Assessment (EA)
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the Endangered Species Act. The BIA lacks sufficient
funding, personnel and time to meet the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NEPA requirements for analysis
of prairie dog/ferret complexes, the potential
reintroduction of ferrets and evaluation of other
endangered, threatened or candidate species associated with
prairie dog towns. As a result, the BIA completed only an
initial investigation for the Environmental Assessment
required for prairie dog poisoning on the Reservation. The
BIA's Environmental Assessment was published in September,
1991.
Due to budget constraints and lack of funding for
overall range improvement, poisoning of prairie dogs has
traditionally been the primary management alternative used
by the BIA on reservation trust lands. However, under
contemporary conditions continued poisoning of prairie dogs
in relationship to endangered and threatened species is no
longer feasible. Specifically, the USFWS has issued a
biological opinion that the proposed poisoning of prairie
dogs on the Cheyenne River Reservation would jeopardize the
survival and recovery of the black-footed ferret.
The proposed control measure through limited poisoning
on both reservations has also been hindered by threatened
litigation from the Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra
Club because it could jeopardize potential recovery of the
black- footed ferret and is therefore in violation of the
Endangered Species Act. Additionally, these organizations
disagreed with the conclusions reached under the NEPA
procedures that proposed poisoning would not be a major
impact on the environment.
104
In order to fully comply with NEPA and the Endangered
Species Act, additional field work and evaluation of prairie
dog complexes for suitability of reintroduction must be
conducted on the Cheyenne River Reservation. Agreement
between the Tribe, USFWS and BIA must be developed for
management of other endangered or threatened species. A
socio-economic analysis of the effects which prairie dog
management alternatives have on reservation economics is
also necessary. The BIA has advised that approximately
$200,000 is available to the Tribes under a P.L. 93-638
contract to complete these requirements. The Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe plans to comply with these requirements in
conjunction with the project.
As a result of these factors, the BIA has determined
not to conduct poisoning control of prairie dogs on the
reservation, but has acknowledged that a lack of management
could lead to a further deterioration of the range resource
and a loss of economic benefits to the Tribe and individual
Indian cattle operators. The failure of the BIA to address
this problem could force the Tribe to litigate for breach of
trust responsibility because lack of management could lead
to a further degradation of the range resource. The 1980
lawsuit by the American Farm Bureau against the U.S.
Department of the Interior and BIA for failure to control
prairie dogs on the Pine Ridge Reservation and other federal
land holdings, for example, led to the provision of a multi-
million dollar appropriation in the mid-1980 's.
It is the intent of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to
resolve this "catch 22" situation through the "Prairie
Management Plan", which will at once permit compliance with
the Endangered Species Act and allow the federal government
to exercise its trust responsibility for management of
reservation lands.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
The following series of events has precipitated the
current situation and development of the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribal "Prairie Management Plan":
196'<-79 Black-footed ferret populations discovered in South
Dakota, near Rosebud reservation, populations captured
but die in captivity. Sightings recorded on Cheyenne
River Reservation
1967 USFWS lists the black-footed ferret as endangered
1980 American Farm Bureau Federation files suit in Federal
court against federal agencies, including BIA, for
failure to control prairie dogs on Pine Ridge
Reservation, Badlands National Park and National
Grasslands
105
1981-5 Black-footed ferret population discovered in Wyoming,
population is captured, bred in captivity and
preparations for reintroduction are made
1985-6 Congress appropriates funding (approximately $10
million) for Pine Ridge prairie dog control program
through poisoning
1988 USFWS approves the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan
that evaluates reintroduction on 10 suitable sites
including three on Cheyenne River Reservation
1989 USFWS publishes the Black-Footed Ferret Survey
Guidelines for compliance with Endangered Species Act
1990 Pine Ridge reports an increase in prairie dog
populations
1990 Cheyenne River enacts a Tribal Resolution
requesting funding for prairie dog poisoning
Sep 1990 USFWS recommends conservation measures on Cheyenne
River requiring evaluations prior to any poisoning of
prairie dogs
Oct 1990 Congress provides prairie dog control funds for
Cheyenne River but directs BIA to work with the Tribe
and USFWS to find alternatives to poisoning and to
develop management to allow coexistence with
prairie dog populations
1991 Cheyenne River Sioux Council adopts resolution to
investigate feasibility of setting aside lands for
black-footed ferret reintroduction
Apr 1991 USFWS notes that all prairie dog towns of 1,000 or
more acres affected by federal actions or funding must
be considered as possible ferret habitat
Jun 1991 BIA and USFWS initiate formal consultation pursuant to
Endangered Species Act for Cheyenne River Reservation
targeting 33 1 000 acres of potential black-footed
ferret habitat
Sep 1991 USFWS Biological Opinion holds that the proposed
action to poison prairie dogs on Cheyenne River
Reservation will jeopardize possible existence and/or
recovery of black-footed ferret
Sep 1991 The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife notify the
Secretary of Interior, Director of USFWS, and
Assistant Secretary of BIA of potential litigation
for illegal poisoning of prairie dogs
Sep 1991 BIA issues Environmental Assessment concluding that
prairie dog control on Cheyenne River and Rosebud
Reservations will be suspended, but acknowledges that
prairie dog populations could expand and that
environmental degradation of the range resource
and economic loss to Tribe and individual tribal
members could occur
106
Dec 1991 Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux Tribes initiate
Interdisciplinary Team to develop management
alternatives for prairie dogs
1992 South Dakota Legislature enacts legislation clarifying
and limiting participation of state agencies in black-
footed ferret reintroduction, expresses concern over
loss of income to private land owners as result of
reintroduction efforts.
Mar 1992 Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club advise Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe of their interest and support for
proposed pilot project
107
"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" APPROACH
The proposed project is based on a simple but
compelling assumption -- prairie dogs are a valuable and
essential component of the prairie ecosystem. Therefore,
natural resource management on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Reservation should be conducted so that all wildlife species
can maintain their rightful place in the environment in
conjunction with livestock production. This approach
emphasizes Lakota cultural traditions, biodiversity and
integrated land management for multiple use.
While studies have indicated that excluding or
decreasing cattle grazing increases the cool- or warm-season
grass density and reduces prairie dog colony size, this
method of prairie dog control has historically been opposed
or rejected by the livestock community. Effective
management strategies require a significant capital
investment in range improvement which is currently beyond
the financial means of the Tribe or individual operators.
The proposed management objectives are also long-term as
opposed to the relatively "quick fix" of poisoning, however,
the Tribe is confident that with adequate funding and
support, individual operators will subscribe to the proposed
management techniques, thus overcoming historical support
for poisoning.
The BIA acknowledges that substantial changes in
grazing systems, resulting in more and taller vegetation
would actually reduce the density of prairie dog towns.
However, the Tribe and BIA lack sufficient resources to
effectively develop and implement such grazing management
plans. It would require approximately five years to change
the dominant vegetation from buffalograss {Buchloe
dactyloides) and blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilus)
associations to western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and
associated grasses which characterize a healthy ecosystem.
Rangelands which are dominated by western wheatgrass are
considered to be in "good to high-good" condition.
Although the issues are complex, the solution is
simple -- restoration of rangelands to a health mixed-grass
ecosystem. When prairie lands are in a healthy vegetative
state, prairie dog expansion is stabilized or occurs at
acceptable levels, thereby allowing for the delicate balance
and interrelationships of species necessary for
biodiversity. Under appropriate management strategies,
healthy prairie ecosystems can also sustain cattle
production in harmony with wildlife species. Rehabilitation
of the range will also result in many other benefits, such
as the enhancement of other important wildlife populations.
108
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Environmental Assessment addressing poisoning of
prairie dogs on the Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux
Reservations will be further developed into an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the NEPA process.
"Prairie Management Plan" incorporates objectives required
by the EIS: determine the density of prairie dog burrows on
the remaining 10,000 acres of trust land (23,000 acres were
surveyed for the EA), determine population status and
habitat use for federally endangered, threatened, or
candidate species, and conduct an analysis of the socio-
economic impacts of prairie dog management. Improved range
management techniques proposed by the pilot project will be
applied to the entire 1.3 million acres of trust land on the
Cheyenne River Reservation.
Based on acceptance of the Preferred Management
Alternative resulting from the EIS, limited use of poisoning
on some areas ( such as near croplands and cemeteries ) may be
initiated; provided, however, that these areas are
unsuitable for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets.
Similarly, the reintroduction of black- footed ferrets will
be evaluated during the EIS process.
"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" STRATEGIES
The proposed pilot project challenges historical and
deeply ingrained western assumptions about prairie dogs and
other wildlife: prairie dogs are not pests, rather they are
a valuable and essential part of the delicate balance in the
prairie ecosystem. Accordingly, the Cheyenne River Tribe
does not contemplate eradication of prairie dogs in our
"Prairie Management Plan". Rather, we propose a holistic
philosophy based on improved range usage to restore the
prairie ecosystem to a more natural state where prairie dog
populations are maintained at acceptable levels through
environmentally acceptable mechanisms which allow wildlife
species to coexist along with livestock production.
The link between prairie dog expansion and livestock
grazing is well documented as well as a variety of
recommended management alternatives which are incorporated
into the project including:
1. DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE WATER ON RANGELANDS
Prairie dog expansion is directly related to the lack
of adequate water on western rangelands because cattle tend
to congregate and graze in areas which are near water. Due
to the sparsity of wells and water on reservation range
units, areas in close proximity to water have become
overgrazed while other areas within the range units are
109
undergrazed. Prairie dog colonies expand in the areas of
overgrazing because of shorter grass heights and bare ground
which provides suitable habitat.
The solution for maximum distribution and movement of
cattle through range units is to develop water through
drilling wells or constructing stock dams. During the five-
year project period the Tribe will develop 903 new water
sources, which will result in more dispersal of cattle
throughout the range units, diminish overgrazing near
limited "water holes" and decrease the degraded habitats in
which prairie dog colonies flourish and expand. As a result
of more dispersed cattle, the vegetation can recover and
inhibit prairie dog colonization.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes rangeland
development through the ASCS and SCS cost-sharing programs
which will reimburse land owners for a portion of
development costs. However, these programs are inadequately
funded to meet the development needs on the Cheyenne River
Reservation.
2. RANGE UNIT FENCING TO ACCOMMODATE GRAZING ROTATION
The Cheyenne River Reservation has many large range
units, but it is currently difficult to rotate animals due
to a lack of fencing. The Tribe will construct 682.5 miles
of cross fencing on the range units to enable managers to
rotate cattle on a regular basis. This will limit the
overgrazing of certain areas and achieve a balanced use of
grass. Fencing, of course, is related to water development
on the range units.
This technique will require education of individual
operators because it requires a change in traditional
grazing practices and it requires a more labor intensive
approach to livestock management. It will also be necessary
to adapt BIA policies and range compliance procedures to
ensure that the rotation is conducted by individual cattle
operators who lease Tribal and allotted lands. The
implementation of regular and consistent cattle rotation
will result in healthier vegetation which will restrict
prairie dog expansion as well as increase carrying capacity
(numbers of livestock) on the range.
3. WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT
"Prairie Management Plan" provides for a habitat set-
aside fund, which will compensate land owners for retaining
prairie dog colonies to maintain biodiversity and to enhance
populations of black-footed ferrets if reintroduction is
selected as a Preferred Alternative of the EIS. A total of
142 different vertebrate and invertebrate species associated
with black-tailed prairie dog colonies in South Dakota
10
110
(listed in the EA ) . The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe identify
many of these species as culturally important, including
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) , golden eagles
(Rquila chrysaetos) , other raptors, deer (Odocoileus
hemionus and O. virginianus) , pronghorn antelope
(Antilocapra americana) , sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes
phasianellus) , burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) , coyote
(Canis latrans), badger (Taxidea taxus), fox ( Vulpes sp.),
and rabbits (Leporidae).
Construction of cross fencing and stock dams to
disperse livestock throughout a range unit will also be
beneficial to wildlife and fish. Restored grasslands
provide food and cover for upland species. New stock dams
create more areas for wetland nesters, such as waterfowl
(Anatidae) or northern harriers (Cyanus circus), and may
also provide additional suitable habitat for upland species
that are only limited by water. Partial fencing of some new
or existing dams to control access by livestock will enhance
fish and wildlife habitat by restoring riparian vegetation,
decreasing compaction around the dam, increasing the life of
the dam, reducing non-point sources of pollution ( feces or
siltation) in the dam or downstream drainage, stabilizing
stream banks, and preventing trampling or grazing of trees
and shrubs. Trees and shrubs provide a vertical dimension
to the otherwise homogeneous grasslands, resulting in a
manifold increase in species diversity.
Controlling access to dams and reservoirs is an
accepted and encouraged practice for wildlife habitat
enhancement. Tribes are not eligible for funding by the
Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (Dingell-
Johnson and Pitmann-Robertson ) , nor does USFWS have a legal
means of directing funds to Tribes. However, funding for
construction of some stock dams and cross fencing is
available through the USFWS ' s North American Wetlands
Conservation Project, the 1991 Farm Bill, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Soil
Conservation Service. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is
actively seeking other sources of funding and submitting
proposals, but it is unlikely that the range improvements
needed could be met through these grants alone.
4. ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR CANDIDATE SPECIES
As previously noted, the BIA has not received general
funding for endangered species work on reservation trust
lands. Furthermore, only states (not Tribes) are eligible
for funding allocated by Section 6 of the Endangered Species
Act for population or habitat management. Until this is
corrected, the Tribes must request special appropriations to
manage endangered or threatened species on Reservations.
11
Ill
"Prairie Management Plan" incorporates USFWS ' s
Conservation Recommendations presented with the formal
Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation in regard to
poisoning prairie dogs. Population status and habitat use
for endangered or threatened species associated with prairie
dog complexes will be surveyed and monitored, and species-
specific management plans will be written. Federally listed
species probably occurring on the Cheyenne River Reservation
include bald eagle, black-footed ferret (past sightings
only), interior least terns (Sterna aantillarum) , peregrine
falcons (Falco peregrinus) , piping plovers, (Charadrius
melodus) , whooping crane (Grus americanus) and the American
burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus, status unknown).
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe proposes to adopt
additional conservation measures for candidate species
(species being considered for federal listing as endangered
or threatened) associated with prairie dog complexes.
Surveys to determine status and habitat use, monitoring, and
written management plans will be developed for the
Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) , ferruginous hawk (B.
regalis), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) , long-billed
curlew (Numenius americanus) , loggerhead shrike {Lanius
ludovicianus) , and the northern swift fox (Vulpes velox) .
Population enhancement for these species now may prevent
listing, and save millions of dollars in future
reintroduction expenses.
5. PUBLIC EDUCATION
The underlying challenge of the project is to change
the deeply ingrained western attitude that prairie dogs are
"pests", to promote an understanding and appreciation for
prairie biodiversity, and to secure the voluntary
participation of livestock operators in the project.
Specifically, it will be the responsibility of individual
permittees, and tribal and BIA land managers to implement
the range management techniques on leased trust lands.
Although the Tribe has received an initial favorable
response from cattle operators about the project, it will be
essential to provide education to these operators on the
benefits and the actual use of the proposed management
techniques.
The cooperation of the BIA and Tribal range managers
is also critical to ensure compliance. For example, the BIA
requires individual operators to annually submit operation
plans which include lease stipulations on how the range
units will be used. These plans will be modified from
current modes to include the proposed management strategies.
The Tribes and BIA must have adequate range and wildlife
personnel and equipment to conduct monitoring, provide
technical support to individual operators and to ensure
compliance with the new management strategies. The success
12
112
of the project hinges to a large degree upon the individual
and Tribal cattle managers supporting and implementing the
proposed range management techniques.
Other goals are to increase public understanding of
issues associated with the Endangered Species Act,
particularly the black-footed ferret and other endangered,
threatened or candidate species and of the general concepts
of biodiversity and multiple- use land management.
6. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
The project has been designed by an Interdisciplinary
Team comprised of tribal, federal, state and environmental
representatives (see appendix for list of members). This
team will serve as an active working and advisory arm to the
Tribal land managers responsible for implementing the
project. The Team will also conduct annual evaluations and
be responsible for the preparation of annual reports on the
project.
7. BISON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
In accordance with cultural values and community
economic development planning, the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe recently initiated a tribal bison herd project which
compliments and will be integrated with the "Prairie
Management Plan". The goal is to use 100,000 acres of
tribal land for bison production within five years. This
Bison Enhancement Project, and associated Wildlife
Enhancement Project, is supported by the Tribe,
congressional set-aside funds for the Inter-Tribal Bison
Cooperative, and grants from the Administration for Native
Americans and BIA. In the future, it is possible that bison
production may be a viable component of the "Prairie
Management Plan" .
13
113
RESULTS AND BENEFITS
The project will result in a multitude of direct and
indirect benefits. Following is a list of the more
significant results which are anticipated:
ENVIRONMENTAL
* Increased or enhanced wildlife and fish habitats
with resultant healthier populations
* Maintenance and recovery of endangered wildlife
species; enhanced populations of candidate species to
prevent listing and reduced future needs for funding for
recovery and reintroduction
* Reduction in soil erosion and stabilization of
stream banks and channels
* Reduction of non-point sources of pollution,
especially at dams and riparian areas
TRIBAL
* Maintain range conditions at or above present
levels of productivity
* Increased self sufficiency through cattle
production
* Increased revenues from hunting and fishing
* Increased capacity for subsistence hunting
* Increased public awareness and skills in range
management to promote biodiversity and enhance wildlife
* Increased coordination and cooperation with
federal, state and private environmental interests
FEDERAL
* A reduction in the need for annual appropriations
in prairie dog poisoning control funds over a five-year
period
* Averting the threat of litigation against the BIA
by environmental organizations for violation of the
Endangered Species Act and NEPA, as well as tribal
litigation for violation of trust responsibility
l/t
114
* Compliance with the Endangered Species Act and
National Environmental Policy Act and related policy and
regulation
NATIONAL
* Possible establishment of sites for reintroduction
of black-footed ferret
* The development and testing of model range
management techniques which enhance biodiversity
15
115
BUDGET REQUIREMENTS
In order to be implemented, federal funds are
necessary for a period of approximately five years.
However, the funds required for the proposed "Prairie
Management Plan" -- less than $2.00 per acre for the first
year -- are actually less per acre than what would be
required for traditional management through poisoning. Once
the management objectives are completed, range conditions
should be in a condition to sustain both cattle grazing and
prairie dogs at acceptable levels with only minimum
management efforts and funding.
YEAR 1
The first year budget requirement is $2,220,000 to
conduct management activities on the 1.3 million acres of
trust lands, which have been determined possible habitat for
black-footed ferret reintroduction, but will eventually
include all 2.8 million acres of reservation land. A
complete budget breakdown of these costs is included in the
Appendix. The activities which will be completed in year
one include the following:
1 . Complete an Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in accordance with NEPA
($0).
2. Conduct public and landowner education regarding
Endangered Species issues and project objectives to
facilitate support and voluntary cooperation in project
($4,000).
3. Conduct surveys of federally endangered, threatened or
candidate species to determine status and develop management
plans ($366,000).
4. Identify prairie dog towns as suitable or unsuitable
habitat and coordinate activities with landowners and the
Tribe to establish habitat set-aside areas including payment
to landowners ($585,000).
5. Construct 137 miles of cross fencing on range units
($273,000).
6. Construct 195 water developments on range units
($1,166,000).
7. Build fences to control livestock access to dams to
enhance wildlife habitat ($270,000)
8. Interagency coordination with federal, state and tribal
agencies and Interdisciplinary Team ($5,000).
16
116
9. Design research protocol and techniques, conduct first
year evaluation/report ($2,500)
10. Investigate and pursue alternative funding sources ($0)
YEARS 2-5
Depending on the results achieved in Year 1 , the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe will submit detailed budget
requests for future years of the project (see Appendix 3).
The infrastructure developments are phased over a five-year
period and the Tribe will also require continued support
throughout the project to maintain technical and
professional staff to conduct management activities.
However, during the first year, the Tribe will actively
investigate and pursue other sources of funding to help
support and continue the project which could reduce the need
for annual appropriations. The need for specific
appropriations could be greatly reduced if Congress were to
authorize Tribes to receive funds under the Endangered
Species Act and other programs which could provide funding
for project activities.
17
117
APPENDICES
1 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS
2 CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL
RESOLUTION
3 BUDGET SUMMARIES
4 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
118
APPENDIX 1: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS
TEAM LEADER
Parr, Kenneth
Area Wildlife Biologist, Aberdeen
Area Office, Bureau of Indian
Affairs
TEAM MEMBERS
Carson, James M.
Hawk Chasing, Elton
Croxen, Michael
DuBray, Fred
Eklund, Daniel*
Eisner, Sherry
Heckert, Mark
Hudson, Jim
Lilly, Wayland G.
Rousseau, Narcisse
Supervisory Range Conservationist,
Rosebud Agency, Bureau of Indian
Affairs
Land Operations Officer, Rosebud
Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Supervisory* Range Conservationist,
Cheyenne River Agency, Bureau of
Indian Affairs
Coordinator, Administration for
Native Americans, Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe
Wildlife Biologist, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD
Wildlife Biologist, Administration
for Native Americans, Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe
Wildlife Biologist, Native American
Fish & Wildlife Society
Tribal Land Office
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Area Range Conservationist, Aberdeen
Area Office, Bureau of Indian
Affairs
Director, Game, Fish and Parks
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
* Corrections made 15 June 1992
19
119
APPENDIX 2 - CHEYENNE RIVER TRIBAL RESOLUTION
20
120
TRIBAL MKMORANDUM
TO:
1-ROM:
SUBJECT:
SUPERINTENDENT, Cheyenne River Agenc^
Arli-ne Thompson, Tribnl Secretary
DATE: 05/06/92
RESOLUTION NO. 1A5-92-CR: Submitting an application for the "Prairie
Hanageinent Plan and that this funding be appropriated by Congress as a
pilot project to help maintain our land and other natural resources.
Transmitted hurewith is one (1) original copy and five (5) copies of Resolution No.
1A5-92-CR, which was duly adopted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council, during
its regular session held on May 6, 1992.
Chairman
Treasurer
Central Records
Councilmerabers
Planning Department
File/ 2
21
121
RESOLUTION NO. 1A5-92-CR
WtlEKI'AS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is an unincorporated Tribe of
Indians, having accepted the provision of the Act of June 18, 193A (AH Stat.
984); and
WHERKAS, the Tribe, in order to establish its tribal organization; to cons.;rve its
tribal property; to develop its conunon resources; and to promote the general
welfare of its people, has ordained and es.tablished a Constitution and
By-laws; and
WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe supports the management of reservation lands
in a manner that is culturally and environmentally sound; and
WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe needs range improvements, such as cross fencing
and water development, to better manage livestock grazing, and enhance the
prairie ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recognizes that prairie dogs require management
to determine acceptable population levels so that livestock production and
species diversity are maximized; and
WHEREAS ,
WHEREAS,
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe values species diversity, including federally
threatened, endangered, and species, such as the black-footed ferret and bald
eagle (of which some species are of cultural/spiritual importance), but
requires compensation to landowners for maintenance of critical habitats; and
the Tribal Planning staff has worked in conjunction with tlie Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an integrated
management plan, entitled "Prairie Management Plan"; now
TIH'.REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe submits the enclosed
application for the "Prairie Management Plan"; and
liE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tlie Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe req\iests rhis fiuidin;; be
appropriated by Congress as a pilot project to help maintain our land and
other natural resources.
CERTIFICATION
I, Che undersigned, as Secretary of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, ceri ily that tiie
Tribal Council is composed of fifteen (15) members, of whom 11, constituting a quorum,
were present at a meeting, duly and regularly called, noticed, convened and held this
6th day of May, 1992, Regular Session; and that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted at such meeting by an affirmative vote of 9 for, 1 against, 1 not voting
(Vice-chairman) and 4 absent.
■L'^^y/// f/^^///^'.yA
Arlene ThMp^on, See/etary
Cheyenne River Siou^ Tribe
22
122
T K I 11 A 1. M I- M n K A N I ) II M
TO: SUI'I-RINTI'.NDFINT, Choyoniie River Agei^<;^y(
FROM: Arlene Thompson, Tribal Secretary
DATK: l/0')/92
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 22-92-CR: The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is request inc.
funding to develop a Prairie Doj; Control I'lan, which includes tliu nin-
troduction ol the lilack-Koot ed I'erret, In conjunction with water deve-
lopment and pasture development for rotational ^'.razing patterns, that
iundinf. [or this plan will Include reimbursement to land owners ior
maintaining endanj'.ered species habitat through Section Six oi the En-
dangered Species Act, and that the tribal planninj; staff will work in
conjunction with the Bureau oi Indian Affairs Land Operations Office
and the U.S. Elsh and Wildlife Service to develop the Lonj; Range Man-
agement I'lan.
Transmitted herewith is one (1) original copy and five (5) copies of Resolution No.
22-92-CR, which was duly adopted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council, during
its Regular January Session held on January 9, 1992.
Chairman
Treasurer
Councilraembers (15)
nistrict Officers (12)
Land and Natural Resources
I'red Dubray, ANA Director
Orvllle Mestes, Planning Director
El le/2
123
RESOLUTION NO. 22-92-CR
WHliREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is an unincorporated Tribe
of Indians having accepted the provisions of the Act of June 18, 1934
(48 Stat. 984); and
WHERKAS, the Tribe jn order to establish its tribal organization, to euiu;"rve its
tribal property, to develop its common resources, and to promote the gene-
ral welfare of its people has ordained and establislied a Constitution and
By-l.aws; and
li/liniREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe supports the management of reservation lands
in a manner that is environmentally sound; and
WHKREAS, the Clieyenne River Sioux Tribe recognizes tlie Black Tailed Praire Dog as a
major food source for hawks, eagles, coyotes, and other predators that cur-
rently migrate and exist on reservation lands; and
WHEREAS, the Black-Footed Ferret is an endangered species protected by tlie Federal
Government under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act and requires
the Prairie Dog as it's major food source; and
WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has one of the few Prairie Dog Complexes
that are suitable for the survival and recovery of the Black-Footed Ferret
in a natural habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe desires a management plan to control and
retard the growth of the Prairie Dog populations on tlie reservation; now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cheyenne River Si.oux Tribe is requesting funding
to develop a Prairie Dog Control Plan, which includes the reintroduction
of the Black-Footed Ferret, in conjunction with water development and pas-
ture development for rotational grazing patterns; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funding for this plan will include reimbursement to
land owners for maintaining endangered species habitat through Section Six
of the Endangered Species Act; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the tribal planning staff will work in conjunction with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Operations Office and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to develop the Long Range Management Plan.
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, certify that
the Tribal Council is composed of fifteen (15) members, of whom 14, constituting
a quorum, were present at a meeting, duly and regularly called, noticed, convened
and held this 9rh day of January, 1992, Regular Session; and that the foregoing
resolution was duly adopted at such meeting by an affirmative vote of 14 for, 0 a-
gainst, 0 not voting and 1 absent.
ftlene TKom/son, Secretary
Cheyennei^River Sioux Tribi
2A
124
APPENDIX 3: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN BUDGET
OBJECTIVE 1: Implement and monitor planned range and wildlife
enhancement projects involving construction of cross-fencing and water
sources to disperse cattle away from impact areas, and construction of
fences around dams to increase wildlife habitat. Based on EIS, control
prairie dogs in some areas.
YEAR 1
YEAR 2-5
PER YEAR
TOTAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Cross-Fencing (683 miles)
$273,000
$273,000
$1,365,000
Fencing for Dams
270.000
270,000
1,350.000
Dams (903)
903.000
903.000
i». 515. 000
Wells (75)
105.000
105.000
525.000
1.551.000
1,551.000
7.755.000
PERSONNEL
Range Technicians (2)
32.016
32.016
160,080
Right-of-Way Specialist (1)
26.797
26.797
133.985
Engineer/Survey Tech (1)
2'*, 500
32,418
2^ , 500
32.418
122.500
Archaeologist (1)
162,090
Fringe {26%)
30.090
1^(5.821
30.090
150. ^+50
ROTTTPMRMT
145.821
729.105
Vehicles (4)
60.000
60,000
Vehicle Fuel/Maintenance
10,800
10.800
54.000
Office/General
7.000
3.000
19.000
77.800
13.800
133.000
OBJECTIVE 2: For federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species
conduct surveys, determine/monitor status, write management plans, and
provide compensation to maintain prairie dog towns as critical habitat.
Based on EIS, consider reintroducing black-footed ferrets.
PERSONNEL
Wildlife Biologist (2)
Wildlife Technicians (k)
Fringe (26^^)
irniiTPMPNT
53.594
64,032
34,745
152.371
53.594
64.032
34.745
152.371
267,970
320,160
173.725
761.655
Vehicles (6)
Vehicle Fuel/Maintenance
Office/General
90,000
16.200
23.000
129.200
16.200
2.000
18.200
90.000
81,000
31^00
202.000
HABITAT SET-ASIDE FUND
160,000
160,000
800,000
OBJECTIVE 3: Prepare and present workshops, seminars, or other
educational materials on prairie ecosystems, biodiversity, grazing
management, and endangered species to local groups and communities.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
4,000
1,500
10,000
$2,220,192 $2,042,692 $10,390,960
25
125
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST
GS-11
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position involves conducting and coordinating an
environmental impact analysis in conjunction with a range
and wildlife enhancement project on the Cheyenne River
Reservation,
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Prepare, process and issue an environmental impact
statement in compliance with federal trust responsibility on
Indian lands and other laws and regulations, such as NEPA,
NHPA, ARPA, FWCA, EDS, etc.
B. Conduct scoping meetings, public hearings,
environmental review, consultations and other methods of
public involvement with Indian and non-Indian people.
C. Involve the Indian people in decision-making in the
EIS process.
D. Prepare regular progress and annual reports.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Demonstrated ability to prepare an EIS.
B. Knowledge of the requirements and procedures
required under the various federal laws (NEPA, NHPA, Fish &
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act),
regulations and Executive Orders (No. 11593) pertaining to
environmental and cultural resource management.
C. Ability to communicate and translate technical
terms clearly, both orally and in writing.
D. Knowledge of retained rights established by Treaty
and/or recognized in law, especially numerous environmental
laws in relation to trust responsibilities.
E. Knowledge to interpret and understand Indian goals,
philosophy and policy relating to the use, development and
enhancement of trust natural resources.
26
68-141 - 93 - 5
126
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
RANGE CONSERVATIONIST
GS-8
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with
a range and wildlife enhancement project on the Cheyenne
River Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Conducts range condition and utilization
inventories, and recommends proper stocking rates and
management practices .
B. Conducts field investigation to determine
compliance with terms of grazing permits.
C. Assists with developing, implementing, and
monitoring a major range improvement project.
D. Makes contact with range unit permittees, Indian
and non-Indian, concerning various range-related issues.
E. Supervises Technicians, Aides, and Clerks.
F. Assists with A.D.P. supervision and problem-
solving.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Must have a professional knowledge, educational
background and competence in Range Management.
B. Must understand theories, practices and techniques
of Range Conservation.
C. Must have ability to discuss and advise on specific
and complex range management and conservation practices.
D. Must be knowledgeable in regulations pertaining to
grazing permit and farm lease administration.
E. Must have ability to prepare correspondence and
reports in connection with resource management.
27
127
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
RANGE TECHNICIAN
GS-4
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves range-related duties in conjunction
with a range and wildlife enhancement project on the
Cheyenne River Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Assists Range Conservationist in implementing
federal and tribal grazing regulations and codes.
B. Collects, compiles, and records field data
regarding rangeland utilization surveys and permit
compliance.
C. Makes regular compliance checks, reports
violations, and investigates complaints and problems.
D. Delineates on maps, plats and/or aerial
photographs, land-ownership and range unit boundaries.
E. Observes and records general rangeland conditions.
F. Assists Range Conservationist with ADP data
compilation, modification and application.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. General knowledge of BIA and Tribal grazing codes.
B. Knowledge of aerial photos and interpretation,
topographic maps, legal descriptions, plat books and permit
contracts.
C. Basic knowledge of proper range use.
D. Knowledge of land descriptions and land status
legends.
E. Ability to read livestock brands.
F. Basic knowledge of ADP system.
28
128
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST
GS-9
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Range
Management on the Cheyenne River Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Review Section 4 and 7 documents (e.g., listing
packages, recovery plans, biological assessments, formal and
informal consultation) for Threatened and Endangered
wildlife and plant species.
B. Conduct field evaluations for population and
habitat status of candidate and listed species, and their
response to a range and wildlife enhancement project.
C. Prepare and implement management plans for listed
or candidate species.
D. Participates with other Federal and Tribal resource
personnel on an Interdisciplinary Team to prepare an EIS.
E. Supervises 2-4 Wildlife Technicians.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Knowledge of wildlife biology, especially
threatened, endangered, and candidate species of wildlife
and plants.
B. Demonstrated knowledge of the Endangered Species
Act, NEPA, and other environmental statutes.
C. Demonstrated skill in data analysis, field
techniques, literature search methods, impact assessment,
and scientific methodology.
D. Ability to evaluate complex biological issues and
prepare appropriate recommendations and management plans
with minimal supervision.
E. Demonstrated ability to communicate orally and in
writing (both technical and layman styles) with Indian and
non-Indian individuals or groups.
29
129
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
WILDLIFE TECHNICIAN OR TRAINEE
GS-4
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves developing professional skills in
conjunction with Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Range Management on the Cheyenne River
Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Works with Wildlife Biologist and other
professionals performing technical and basic duties,
especially with endangered, threatened, and candidate
species.
B. Participates in project planning and
implementation .
C. Participates in collecting and compiling basic data
on species, population, or habitat data.
D. Prepares field data for computer processing,
performs error checks, and assists with data summarization,
analysis, and reporting. '
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Knowledge of wildlife biology and associated
sciences gained through academic or field experience.
B. Knowledge of biological research programs,
including field equipment and techniques.
C. Ability to work long hours, during nights, and in
rugged field conditions.
D. Ability to identify wildlife species of the
northern Great Plains, and a knowledge of their habits and
habitats.
E. Ability to communicate effectively orally or in
writing.
F. Ability to work cooperatively with individuals
having diverse or conflicting interests.
G. Knowledge of computer operation.
30
130
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
ARCilAEOLOGlST
GS-11
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with
the construction of range and wildlife improvements on the
Cheyenne River Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Performs cultural resource inventories in
compliance with tribal and federal regulations.
B. Assists and directs onsite monitoring of surface
disturbing activities on historical or archaeologically
sensitive areas.
C. Examines and evaluates the significance of cultural
resources discovered prior to or during construction and
recommends the appropriate mitigation measures to minimize
the impacts to the resource.
D. Prepares case study reports for effect
determinations on project in accordance with Advisory
Council Guidelines.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Professional knowledge of theories and field
techniques gained through completion of a B.A. Degree in
Anthropology, specializing in Archaeology.
B. Knowledge of the environmental and cultural
resources of the Northern Plains.
C. Knowledge of the various tribes' policies,
ordinances, and cultural attitudes toward their land and
environment .
D. Knowledge of federal cultural and environmental
laws and regulations in relation to trust responsibilities,
such as NEPA, NHPA, etc.
E. Ability to write clearly and concisely for work
plans, management reports, and an Environmental Impact
Statement.
31
131
APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING TECHNICIAN
GS-8
I. SCOPE OF WORK
This position is designated for Indian Preference in
Hiring and involves professional work in the construction
of dams and fences in conjunction with a range and wildlife
enhancement project on the Cheyenne River Reservation.
II. MAJOR DUTIES
A. Responsible for the feasibility of and surveys for
sound conservation structures, including dams, dugouts,
wells, and fences.
B. Initiates design specifications, plans and on-site
inspection of work progress and completion.
C. Assures that the best equipment and measuring
methods are used, corrections applied, and computations made
so that accurate data are obtained.
D. Makes personal contacts with property
owners/lessees in gaining entrance to lands and in securing
their cooperation in conducting surveys on their lands.
E. Works effectively with Indian or non-Indian
contractors, government agencies, and Tribal programs.
III. RANKING FACTORS
A. Knowledge of surveying principles including
technical skills in the preparation of final surveying
reports and maps.
B. Knowledge of the concepts and techniques for proper
land surveying.
C. Knowledge of land descriptions, land status
legends, and techniques of aerial photo interpretation.
D. Skill in utilizing electronic programmable
calculators, computers, and electronic field surveying
equipment.
32
132
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to thank you gentlemen for the testi-
mony that has been brought before the Committee.
I think we seem to have a consistent theme across the board in
terms of all those who have testified — and has been alluded earlier
by the Chairman's statement — about the lack of cooperation, or
even for that matter, assistance that we've received from the Bu-
reau of Indian Affairs.
Maybe I'm being repetitious for raising this question, but to all
of you gentlemen, and I think I can ask the members of the panel,
in your opinion, how much assistance has the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs given to your respective organizations in the past in handling
this issue of fisheries and wildlife interests from our Native Amer-
ican communities throughout the country.
And I just wanted to ask that in general form.
Mr. Poynter, your comments are well taken in terms of what this
Committee needs to do. Certainly better coordination is needed to
maximize the participation of our Native American communities,
especially because of the long distances that some of you have had
to travel to visit us here in Washington.
I'm sure it's also the intent of the Chairman, Mr. Richardson,
that rather than you having to come to Washington, maybe there
needs to be a reversal of the process. Maybe Washington needs to
go to you and to hear directly from the tribal organizations. The
members of the Committee would see and experience the reahties
of what the Native American tribes have had to face, not only for
their economic, but certainly for their social needs at present.
Now I think I want to assure Mr. Poynter that the Chairman
will definitely take that into consideration, and it will certainly be
my personal recommendation that we consider this.
I just wanted to ask that first question to all of you. In your opin-
ion, on a scale of one to ten, what is your opinion of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs giving assistance or lack of assistance to your re-
spective organizations?
I'd like to ask Mr. Maulson first.
Mr. Maulson. Mr. Chairman, like I say, it's a great distance
that we've traveled, and it's always good to bring your staff along.
As you know, yourself, a chair person and a very busy person, that
I like to have my technical director of our Natural Resource De-
partment answer that on behalf of Lac Du Flambeau.
Larry Wawronowicz, please, if you would.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please do so.
Mr. Wawronowicz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportiuiity.
I guess in terms oi the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or any federal
agency which the tribe deals with in terms of trying to manage the
resources within the reservation boundaries or on off-reservation,
there always seems to be an inconsistency on how these depart-
ments deal with Indian tribes.
And in our testimony, we specifically state that there has to be
somewhat of a consistency in which these organizations or federal
agencies deal with Indian tribes by possibly coming up with a
clearly defined statement of trust responsibility throu^ legislation.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, it seems in the past that we al-
ways have to come back to Congress during the Appropriations pe-
133
riod to try to reenact dollars that were added by Congress to the
programs, like Tribal Management Development Funds, fish hatch-
ery operations, cyclical maintenance rehabilitation.
Basically what happens here is that the tribes will come to Con-
gress during appropriation period and ask for these appropriations.
And what will happen the next go around is that the Administra-
tion will take them out, and the tribes will have to be here again
to ask for the same dollars.
So basically, we always take two steps forward and one step back
word every appropriations period.
Last year, for example. Congress specifically said within their ap-
propriations language, that Fiscal Year 1993 add-ons would be or
should be, and directing the Bureau of Indian Afiairs to put it on
the base.
You know, through the transition, the Bush Administration basi-
cally went ahead and wiped it all out. So we don't really know
where we stand right now. But hopefully, we're not going to have
to do that with the Clinton Administration.
It's the inconsistent funding that really gives us the problems in
terms of planning. We have 25 people that work for our Natural
Resource Department that are doing very good jobs in trying to
protect, conserve and enhance the resource, but as program man-
agers, it's very difficult to plan for future development and for re-
source protection because of the inconsistent funding problem.
It's a major concern.
So I guess, in summary, I believe that, if Congress decides to put
legislation forward, we do need a consistent and concise definition
of how the trust responsibiUty pertains to natural resources in
order for all the federal agencies the tribes deal with to have an
idea how to deal with Indian tribes.
I firmly believe that inconsistent funding is very much of a prob-
lem for planning purposes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to ask the question again, and
please forgive me if I'm going to terrorize your name, as usually
the members have terrorized my name.
Mr. Wawronowicz, can you give me, by a scale of ten, one to ten,
the one being the best and ten being the worst, your experience
with the BIA. In your honest opinion, how do you rate the BIA in
its working activities with your organization in the past, as you've
started.
Can you give me just a sense of your best opinion?
Mr. Wawronowicz. One being best and ten being worst?
Mr. Faleomavaega. One being the best and ten the worst.
Mr. Wawronowicz. Six.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Six. All right.
Mr. Maulson?
Mr. Maulson. Yes. That was a technical question to my director.
But as a tribal chairman, I think regarding the obligation and
the responsibility of the federal government to the Indian people
across this country that we've just scratched the surface on these
issues. So to ask me, as a tribal chairman, fi*om one to ten, I prob-
ably couldn't give you that number because it's so high.
So I would say we need a lot of work on that, Mr. Chairman.
134
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm not intending to make the BIA the
whipping boy of our hearing this morning, but consistently it seems
that this has always been the constant theme in the years that I've
served on hearings dealing with Native American issues.
I understand that they've made, the past four years, a very dih-
gent effort to reorganize the BIA. I don't know where we are with
that.
And adding more complications to the process is the fact that we
have a new Administration, and we have new players. Let's keep
our fingers crossed that hopefully, with the new Administration, we
will get a better set of policies at least more consistently as com-
pared, perhaps, to what we've had to deal with in the past.
Mr. Schlender?
Mr. Schlender. Yes. I'd like to point out to yourself and to the
Committee that I don't blame the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
some of the concerns that have been raised here.
The fact that our funding comes in at 39 percent less than what
we put it in for, I put the blame for that on the President and on
the Office of Management and Budget.
It's been our experience that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the
one that has the best understanding of what the trust responsibil-
ity is, particularly in comparison to the many other agencies that
we have to deal with in the federal government.
For example, we deal with hydro relicensing projects in the
states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. And the Federal En-
ergy Regulatory Commission has consistently obviated the tribe's
ability to put conditions on the relicensing projects that are going
forward.
And so they have no understanding of what the trust responsibil-
ity is to Indian tribes.
The National Park Service has taken it upon itself to give its
own interpretation as to what treaty rights is.
In the area of Isle Royal, we have endeavored to try to have a
dialogue with them regarding fishing around Isle Royal, comnier-
cial fishing, something that tribal members do in Lake Superior.
And the National Park Service has said that they don't recognize
the treaty rights.
The tribes in our state have chosen not to sue the Federal Gov-
ernment, but instead have chosen to sue the states. But if the Na-
tional Park Service is going to reflect the opinion of the Federal
Government, then certainly a suit like that would have to go for-
ward.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been very good in terms of pro-
viding litigation support to tribes in the midwest. We have risen
up to the top of their list in terms of getting litigation support. And
that's been very helpful to the tribes in its fight against the states
that do not recognize the treaty rights of the tribes.
The Department of Labor has sued our organization, and it clear-
ly is against the weight of case law and opinion that says that in-
terference with the infrastructure, the intramural rights of tribes
to be self-governing strictly in the area of treaty rights, the Depart-
ment of Labor has chosen to ignore that.
It's cost us more than $40,000 to get a win in the trial court
level, and we're facing an appeal with the Department of Labor
135
right now. And so they have no understanding of the federal trust
responsibihty.
The U.S. Forest Service has an uneven and inconsistent way of
deahng with us.
In one National Forest, the local forest manager there has taken
it upon himself to enter into agreements with individual tribes for
the gathering rights.
The Ottawa National Forest manager has taken a different view
on it and has said that for the neighboring tribe that's closest, he
recognizes no rights for gathering in there.
The U.S. Forest Service has taken it upon itself to say in the
boundary waters canoe area that treaty rights don't apply. And it's
our reading of that legislation that the treaty rights were not abro-
gated by the boundary waters canoe area legislation.
We have a pretty good relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service, and they seem to have a better understanding of what
the trust responsibility is. But when we do fishing in the spring,
where we go out and count fish to make sure there are viable fish
populations that the tribes can spear, we have to pay the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for their activities.
Admittedly, we don't pay them the full value of what they give
to us, but it seems to me rather inconsistent that our trustee has
to secure and exact pajonent from the people that it owes a trust
responsibility to.
In the area of environmental protection, the EPA has come up
with an Indian policy, but it's been very ineffective in the way that
it deals with Indian tribes.
Finally, and I don't like to sound as though I'm defending the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has too been
inconsistent and uneven in the way that it deals with Indian
tribes, particularly with organizations like ours that are inter-trib-
al organizations.
In the past, it has taken the opportunity to say that it owes a
collective trust responsibility to the tribes, and we've been very suc-
cessful in going forward and being very effective and very success-
ful in self-management, self-regulatory capabilities under the aegis
of a collective trust doctrine.
That collective trust doctrine has been overturned or put on its
head with the idea of self-governance. Where the Bureau sees that
its trust responsibility is to individual tribes. And so we've had
tribes that have taken money out of the Commission, taken their
Visth share and gone home with it.
Luckily, those tribes have turned around and subcontracted back
to us, because we do have an economy of scale there.
And so we need to really solidify what kind of trust responsibility
that the Bureau owes to organizations like ours that are inter-trib-
al organizations.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, you still didn't give me a number one
to ten opinion of this issue that I've raised earlier.
Mr. SCHLENDER. I wouldn't want to give them a grade, because
I'm sure I would see that some place in testimony in the future,
saying how good they were.
But of the organizations that I mentioned, the other federal orga-
nizations, the Bureau of Indian Aifsiirs has the best understanding
136
of what its trust responsibility is, compared to these other organi-
zations that either ignore or just blatantly deny that there's any
trust responsibility at all.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, you've certainly added a new perspec-
tive, also. I shouldn't say new, but that has been a constant theme
that you've got the problems of the rights of the tribes, and you
have the problem of the rights of the states. And then a whole host
of rights of the different federal agencies fighting among them-
selves as to who's got the right theme or the right policy affecting
the needs of Native Americans.
I'm hopeful that, perhaps with the new Administration, there
will be a sense of consistency by way of policy affecting the needs
of Native Americans throughout the various agencies dealing with
environmental issues, dealing with the rights, the hunting and the
fishing and the wildlife, just as we've discussed this morning.
So I appreciate your comment on that.
Mr. Poynter?
Mr. Poynter. Five.
In all fairness to the Bureau, I feel the Bureau is trying to do
the best they can.
I think maybe they could advocate for more funding for fish and
wildlife management on behalf of tribes.
I echo what Mr. Schlender says about they have probably the
best understanding of trust responsibility.
And, like Mr. Schlender, I feel that the other federal agencies
need to come up to speed with the Bureau's understanding of trust
responsibilities.
There's inconsistencies in all the federal agencies. Talking to
tribal wildlife managers and planners across the country, tribal
members are looking forward to the potential of working with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the near future, since they're in
the process of developing their Native American policy.
The people I've talked to feel that the Service are the experts in
fish and wildlife management, and probably the time is right to
begin working with them directly in co-management areas.
I would personally like to see the different federal agencies work
more cooperatively and collectively together.
You go to one agency, and although they have an Indian policy,
they have no money behind it; specifically, the EPA, you know.
And there's a lot of areas where they could be working together,
you know, if they could all chip in here and there, they could get
things done, whereas just putting it on a shelf £uid sajdng, well, we
don't have adequate funding at this time, maybe in the future.
But I feel that the time is right. Things have changed in the last
year. I don't know what happened, but all of a sudden fish and
wildlife issues are a high priority here in Washington with tribes,
or at least Congress is looking at it that way.
In my book, thej^ve always been a priority, but because of the
IPS (Indian Priority System) that was in place at one time, those
concerns for fish and wildlife management weren't considered pri-
orities, because when the tribal chairman had to choose between a
health center for his people and a fish hatchery, there was no com-
parison.
137
But now tribes are able to show that natural resources, specifi-
cally fish and wildlife, are high priorities in Indian country, and
hopefiilly the funding will follow.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Poynter.
Mr. DuBray.
Mr. DuBray. Yes. As far as a rating from one to ten, that's very
difficult to put a number on there, especially in light of the dif-
ficulty that the federal agencies, as well as the Congress, have in
defining just what trust responsibility is and who is responsible for
it.
So I guess to answer your question though, right now, because
of our situation, I would have to give them a ten. Because here we
are on our way to the Supreme Court against the State of South
Dakota threatening to undermine our very sovereign jurisdiction.
And so in light of what these gentlemen say, I agree that it
maybe is not necessarily the BIA's fault, but it is a federal trust
responsibility that has been neglected.
And so I know the Bureau tries as hard as they can to do the
best they can with the limited funding they have, but some of the
responsibility has to be shared by the whole Federal Government.
And I think that all of the federal agencies need to recognize
tribes as visible and full participants in the fish and wildlife re-
source management.
The BIA, on the other hand, can't make that decision. They can't
say that tribes can receive equal funding or equal status to a state,
for instance. That has to come from here, from the Congress.
And so I can't say that I put all the blame on the Bureau, and
that's why I give them that kind of rating. But those are the kinds
of things that need to happen.
And from a Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal perspective, we feel
that legislation is absolutely necessary that recognizes tribes as full
participants and equal managers, as states are.
Without that kind of legislation, when everybody comes to the
table to participate and receive a piece of the funding, tribes are
neglected.
One of the federal agencies goes, they get the money, they build
up their capability to manage our resources.
What we're suggesting is that we need that money directly out
to our tribe and out to our reservations so we can build up our ca-
pability, not the Bureau's capability, not the Fish and Wildlife
Service, not any other federal agency. We need to build our capabil-
ity.
Because our projects, we live on the land, these resources are
very important to us, and we know them best how to manage them.
And that has to be recognized by everyone involved.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'm reminded of a statement made by Mr.
John Wesley about the missionaries who are here to convert the In-
dians, and then he said, but who will convert me.
And I want to raise again a measuring stick. Please don't feel
that maybe I'm being simplistic, but I'm not specifically asking for
a scientific method to say exactly where we are, as it was alluded
to eariier by our friend from the Nav^o Nation, because every tnbe
138
has a different setting, a different history, and a different relation-
ship with the federal government, as well as with the states.
So understanding that diversity problems existing even among
the tribes themselves, I think we also need to have you gentlemen
express an opinion about the Congress.
So using the same measuring stick, Mr. Maulson, one to ten, how
do you thank Congress has been behaving in dealing with Indian
issues?
Just the numbers.
Mr. Maulson. Very bad, number ten.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ten.
Mr. Schlender?
Mr. Schlender. I think that the Congress
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, no explanation. Just give me the
number.
Mr. Schlender. One is good and ten is bad?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ten is the worst.
Mr. Schlender. Ten is the worst.
Three.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Three. You're being very generous.
Mr. Poynter?
Mr. Poynter. Eight.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Eight.
Mr. DuBray?
Mr. DuBray. I'm going to have to go ten again.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
This message will certainly be conveyed to the Chairman.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
For our next panel, we have the Honorable Nelson Wallulatum,
the Chief of the Wasco Tribe and the Tribal Council Member of the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon.
Also Mr. Billy Frank, Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish-
eries Commission, Olympia, Washington, accompanied by Mr.
James Anderson, the Director.
And also Mr. Jim Harp, the Fisheries Manager of the Quinault
Nation, in Taholah, Washington.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to apologize to Mr. Wallulatum if I
mispronounced his name, but don't feel bad. It's just as bad for try-
ing to pronounce Faleomavaega, so welcome to the club.
But we would like to give you this opportunity now to please
present your statement before the Committee.
Thank you.
139
PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. NELSON WALLULATUM, CHIEF,
WASCO TRIBE, AND MEMBER, TRIBAL COUNCIL, THE CON-
FEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION,
OR, ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD ARNETT, ESQ., TRIBAL AT-
TORNEY; BILLY FRANK, CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN
FISHERIES COMMISSION, OLYMPIA, WA, ACCOMPANIED BY
JAMES R. ANDERSON, DIRECTOR; AND JIM HARP, FISHERIES
MANAGER AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, QUINAULT IN-
DIAN NATION, TAKOLAH, WA
STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON WALLULATUM
Mr. WALLULATUM. Good moming, Mr. Chairman and the mem-
bers of the Committee.
My name is Nelson Wallulatum, and I am Chief of the Wasco
Tribe and a Hfetime member of the Tribal Council of The Confed-
erated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
Accompanying me is our tribal attorney, Mr. Howard Amett.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal
Council concerning the proposal to enact national Indian fish and
wildlife legislation.
In our views, there are several things that national Indian fish
and wildlife legislation should do, and several things it should not
do.
Let me first tell you what the legislation should not do.
The legislation should not try to define or interpret treaty-re-
served fishing and hunting rights. The circumstances of each tribe
and each treaty are imique.
Few legal principles can be applied across the board to aU tribes
and all Indian treaties.
Broad legislative characterizations about the nature of all Indian
treaty rights are very likely to misconstrue some treaty rights.
The danger of misinterpretation is especially great for tribes such
as Warm Springs whose treaty fishing and hunting rights have
been carefully defined by numerous federal court decisions over the
years.
In our view, it would be a mistake to try to codify these coiul;
rulings in national Indian fish and wildlife legislation.
Now let me discuss what the legislation should do.
First and foremost, the legislation should assist the tribes in ex-
ercising their fish and wildlife management authority.
Current federal assistance to tribal governments to carry out this
most important function of their sovereign authority is inadequate.
This inadequacy is so great that it brings into question whether the
United States Government is fulfilling its solemn trust responsibil-
ity to protect Indian rights and resources.
The circumstances of the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes il-
lustrates the problem.
Our tribe faces a huge and complex task in trying to protect our
off-reservation treaty rights, as well as manage our on-reservation
fish and wildlife resources.
The 640,000 acres of the Warm Springs Reservation is almost en-
tirely tribal trust land and contains priceless habitat for deer, elk,
eagles, salmon, and numerous other fish and wildlife species.
140
Managing just the fish and wildHfe resources located on our res-
ervation is an overwhelming task. However, in addition to our on-
reservation resources, our forefathers reserved off-reservation fish-
ing, hunting, and food-gathering rights in our 1855 treaty with the
United States that gives us a legally-protected interest in fish and
wildlife resources located many miles fi-om the reservation.
Because of our tribe's treaty fishing rights on the Columbia
River, we have become involved in numerous proceedings concern-
ing the Columbia River basin's salmon runs.
These proceedings range fi*om the International Pacific Salmon
Commission negotiations to Hmit the Canadian catch of Columbia
River salmon, to efforts under the Endangered Species Act to pro-
tect certain upper Columbia River salmon stocks, to self-regulation
of tribal fisheries under the United States versus Oregon Columbia
River Fish Management Plan.
Furthermore, our tribe works very hard to protect our off-res-
ervation hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ten mil-
Uon acres of north central Oregon that represent our tribe's treaty
ceded area. Much of the ceded area is federal land managed by the
United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
We constantly monitor the activities of these agencies to ensure
protection of the habitat that supports our treaty hunting, fishing
and food gathering rights in the ceded area.
All of these eff'orts, both on-reservation and off-reservation, have
taxed our staff and policy capabihties beyond our present means.
In short, our legal management authority in the area of on-reserva-
tion and off-reservation fish and vnldlife resources exceeds our abil-
ity to actually exercise that authority.
We do not need more funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff.
Instead, we need direct federal assistance to the tribe, to help us
carry out our fish and wildlife management responsibilities.
The federal government's trust duty to protect and preserve the
fish and wildlife resources on which Indian treaty rights and sov-
ereign authority depend is not fulfilled until this assistance is pro-
vided.
The trust responsibility also requires more than financial assist-
ance to tribal governments. The trust responsibility is a binding
legal obligation of those federal agencies, such as the Forest Serv-
ice, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Marine Fish-
eries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and those who manage
the fish and wildlife resources on which the tribe's treaty-reserved
rights and sovereign authority depend.
This legislation should lay out in clear terms the obligations
these agencies have to protect, manage, and enhance the fish and
wildlife resources that are subject to legally protected Indian
rights.
Finally, the legislation should establish the fundamental nature
of the govemment-to-govemment relationship between the tribes,
on the one hand, and the federal and state governments on the
other.
A commitment to support tribal participation in all fish and wild-
life management activities where tribal legally protected interests
are involved would help establish the status of the tribes as co-
i
141
managers of the fish and wildlife resources along with the federal
and state agencies.
In conclusion, the Warm Springs Tribal Council hopes that you
will consider these general observations in drafting national Indian
fish and wildlife legislation.
We welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff in
developing this legislation. Thank you.
[Prepared statements of Mr. Wallulatum follow:]
142
TESTIMONY
OF
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON
CONCERNING
NATIONAL INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE LEGISLATION
United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
Washington, D. C.
February 18, 1993
Good morning, Congressman Richardson and members of the Committee.
My name is Nelson Wallulatum, and I am Chief of the Wasco Tribe
and a lifetime member of the Tribal Council of The Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I am here today
to testify on behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal Council concerning
the proposal to enact national Indian fish and wildlife
legislation. In our view, there are several things that national
Indian fish and wildlife legislation should do, and several things
it should not do. First, let me tell you what the legislation
should not do.
The legislation should not try to define or interpret treaty-
reserved fishing and hunting rights. The circumstances of each
tribe and each treaty are unique. Few legal principles can be
applied across the board to all tribes and all Indian treaties.
Broad legislative characterizations about the nature of all Indian
treaty rights are very likely to misconstrue some treaty rights.
PAGE 1
143
The danger of misinterpretation is especially great for a tribe
such as Warm Springs whose treaty fishing and hunting rights have
been carefully defined by numerous federal court decisions over the
years. In our view, it would be a mistake to try to codify these
court rulings in national Indian fish and wildlife legislation.
Now, let me discuss what the legislation should do. First and
foremost, the legislation should assist the tribes in exercising
their fish and wildlife management authority. Current federal
assistance to tribal governments to carry out this most important
function of their sovereign authority is inadequate. This
inadequacy is so great that it brings into question whether the
United States Government is fulfilling its solemn trust
responsibility to protect Indian rights and resources.
The circumstances of the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes
illustrate the problem. Our tribe faces a huge and complex task
in trying to protect our off-reservation treaty rights as well as
manage our on-reservation fish and wildlife resources. The 640,000
acres of the Warm Springs Reservation is almost entirely tribal
trust land and contains priceless habitat for deer, elk, eagles,
salmon, and numerous other fish and wildlife species. Managing
just the fish and wildlife resources located on our reservation is
an overwhelming task. However, in addition to our on-reservation
resources, our forefathers reserved off-reservation fishing,
hunting and food gathering rights in our 18 55 treaty with the
PAGE 2
144
United States that give us a legally-protected interest in fish and
wildlife resources located many miles from the reservation.
Because of our tribe's treaty fishing rights on the Columbia River,
we have become involved in numerous proceedings concerning the
Columbia River basin's salmon runs. These proceedings range from
the international Pacific Salmon Commission negotiations to limit
the Canadian catch of Columbia River salmon, to efforts under the
Endangered Species Act to protect certain upper Columbia River
salmon stocks, to self -regulation of tribal fisheries under the
United States v. Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan.
Furthermore, our tribe works very hard to protect our off-
reservation hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ten
million acres of north central Oregon that represent our tribe's
treaty ceded area. Much of the ceded area is federal land managed
by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. We constantly monitor the activities of these agencies
to ensure protection of the habitat that supports our treaty
hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ceded area.
All of these efforts, both on-reservation and off-reservation, have
taxed our staff and policy capabilities beyond our present means.
In short, our legal management authority in the area of on-
reservation and off-reservation fish and wildlife resources exceeds
our ability to actually exercise that authority.
PAGE 3
145
We do not need more funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff.
Instead, we need direct federal assistance to the tribe to help us
carry out our fish and wildlife management responsibilities. The
federal government's trust duty to protect and preserve the fish
and wildlife resources on which Indian treaty rights and sovereign
authority depend is not fulfilled until this assistance is
provided.
The trust responsibility also requires more than financial
assistance to tribal governments. The trust responsibility is a
binding legal obligation on those federal agencies, such as the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, who
manage the fish and wildlife resources on which the tribe's treaty-
reserved rights and sovereign authority depend. This legislation
should lay out in clear terms the obligations these agencies have
to protect, manage and enhance the fish and wildlife resources that
are subject to legally protected Indian rights.
Finally, the legislation should establish the fundamental nature
of the government-to-government relationship between the tribes,
on the one hand, and the federal and state governments on the
other. A commitment to support tribal participation in all fish
and wildlife management activities where tribal legally protected
interests are involved would help establish the status of tribes
PAGE 4
146
as co-managers of the fish and wildlife resources along with the
federal and state agencies.
In conclusion, the Warm Springs Tribal Council hopes that you will
consider these general observations in drafting national Indian
fish and wildlife legislation. We welcome the opportunity to work
with you and your staff in developing this legislation. ■
Thank you.
ovfM«.tmA4a&
PAGE 5
147
03-03-1993 12.31
5fc- 385410
KARNOPP PETE, -N et al.
P. 03
■OVPLINSMTAIty TIBTZNONY Of THB
comaDnuiTiD trzbbb of ths
MXSM SVBZMaB RBBBUVXTZOII OF ORBOOV
COMCBRirZMa XATZOMXL ZHDZAM rZBB AND WZLDLZTB LBaZBLATION
OMZTBD BTXTB8 HOUBB OF BBPItBBBHTATZVBB
COXNZTTBB OX MXTTOAL KBBOORCBB
8UBC01CMZTTBB OM MATZYB ANESZCMI XffXZIUI
This Btat«nent BupplwmentB the testimony of the confederated Tribes
of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon concerning Indian fish
and wildlife management and enhancement legislation delivered at
the Committee's February 18, 1993 oversight hearing.
Our supplementary testimony is in response to statements made by
several witnesses at the February 18 oversight hearing concerning
the need to amend Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act to permit
tribal governments to receive direct federal funding for fish and
wildlife management activities. According to these tribal
witnesses, only states can now receive federal funds to conduct
inventories and develop management plans for endangered species
under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. The Warm Springs
Confederated Tribes believes that amendment of any provisions of
the Endangered Species Act to include Indian tribes is unnecessary
and could potentially undermine tribal treaty rights.
Amendment of the Endangered Species Act is not necessary to address
what is essentially a funding problem. This issue can be dealt
with by other means. If tribes have inadequate funding to conduct
resource management work they feel is necessary under the
Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should provide
these tribes with additional discretionary funding that could be
used for a variety of purposes, including work on Endangered
Species Act issues. The money would not necessarily be earmarked
for Endangered Species Act purposes, but could be used for any
appropriate fish and wildlife management activities. The
Endangered Species Act does not need to be amended to get this
funding to tribal governments.
Of far greater concern to us is the possibility that any amendment
to the Endangered Species Act that mentions tribal governments may
have the effect of applying the Act to tribes in a way that
abrogates or restricts their treaty rights. Presently, the
Endangered Species Act and its legislative history are silent with
respect to the Act's application to tribes and its impact on Indian
treaty rights. n«Ho^ T^r.^^^>,r^ n^iif.es v. Dlen. 476 U.S. 734, (1986),
Congress cannot abrogate or restrict Indian treaty rights in a
statute of general application such as the Endangered Species Act
without clearly indicating in the language of the statute or in its
148
03-03-1993 12:32 503J885410 KARNOPP PETEK-.eN et al.
P. 04
legislative history that "Congress actually considered the conflict
between Its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty
rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by
abrogating the treaty." lA. at 740. Presently, no such language
exists in either the statute or the legislative history of the
Endangered Species Act. By amending Section 6 of the Act to
include tribes as governments eligible for funding under the Act,
a court may be misled that this represents a statement of
Congressional Intent that the Act should be applied to tribes even
if the effect is to abrogate or restrict treaty rights. This
should not be allowed to happen.
Accordingly, we urge the Committee to draft Indian fish and
wildlife legislation that provides adequate financial assistance
to all tribes for fish and wildlife management, and provides those
tribes that feel the need to undertake certain activities because
of the Endangered Species Act with adequate resources for that
purpose. However, legislation should not mention the Endangered
Species Act nor attempt to amend the Endangered Species Act to
Include tribes within its coverage. such an amendment must be
avoided because it could very well work to abrogate the treaty-
reserved rights of Warm Springs and many other tribes.
iu,^lml*l*«i«
-2-
149
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frank?
STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Billy Frank, Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Com-
mission.
I belong to the Nisqually [phonetic] Tribe. And this is my friend.
Nelson, plus the other panels here.
And a second everyone of the panels, what they've said, natural
resource people, tribal people.
And with me today I have Jim Anderson, our Executive Director
of Northwest Indian Fish Commission, along with Jim Harp, a
Quinault Tribal Nation member and the manager of their fisnery
in the northwest and along the Pacific Coast, and one of our com-
missioners of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission.
We manage the Pacific salmon, the fish in northwest, as I think
you know about. And because as fi*om that great Samoa country,
you have a lot of, we have a lot of ties together.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes. I have many members of my tribe in
the State of Washington. I hope you look for them.
Mr. Frank. Right. And we have a lot of relatives.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It'll get a little cold up there, but — I appre-
ciate it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. But I enjoy a lot of your questions about how impor-
tant this Committee and the chairmanship of this Committee is
and how it's getting better and better.
Your question about Congress, about one to ten. We're educating
now. You're seeing us in the halls of Congress. You see Steve right
there. You see our other tribal people and other people of color in
our Congress.
That's great, because we've been left out of the plan, the Indian
tribes throughout this nation.
And when it comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and that
question, you know, I asked the tribes, can they afford that bu-
reaucracy any more and your management.
What they ought to be doing is getting the money to us. We want
the money to manage in our homeland and in our own backyard
because we are the managers. And we're good managers, positive
managers, working with the states, working with the counties,
working with the cities and the communities to bring our resources
together to balance it out there for everybody, not just the Indian
tribes.
So we're dealing in long-range management in the Northwest.
And I have some fish here I want to give to you right now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I will accept it gratefully. Is it raw?
Well, I'll be sure the Chairman gets some of it.
Mr. Frank. We'll have a big ceremony one of these days, right
Tom?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I'll be sure to bring my tribe also, and
we'll have a big pow wow. You're going to have to furnish us some
blankets, though, because it gets a little cold up there.
Mr. Frank. We have them too.
150
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to also extend £in invitation to all of
you to come to our humble islands in the South Pacific. Now the
only problem is that I can't pay for your tickets, but you have an
open invitation to come and visit us down there too.
We might share a few things in common.
Mr. Frank. Okay.
We have villages in the northwest that are over 10,000 years old,
and we've been managing the resource for many many thousands
of years, like your people.
And our treaties of 1854 and 1855, have been signed, ratified,
and been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in 1979,
on our fishing rights, and a lot of principles come out of that as
co-managers, along with the State of Washington.
And very, very important principles were laid out in that deci-
sion.
And we have to come to Congress to get our money. We don't
come with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and sit here and ask for
our money. We come and ask for money.
We also try to get money over there. But it does not fit our needs
of fiinding.
We need money to manage. We need infrastructure. We need ca-
pability of sitting down with the State of Washington.
They get federal money. How come we don't get federal money?
Money for to meet our needs in our homelands to manage our re-
source. And make sure that that resource is going to be there for
everybody from now on, the quality of life that we enjoy on our res-
ervations and off of our reservations.
We have a lot of problems from the society now that has moved
here, and dumped garbage, poisons, poison in our water, poison in
our animals, poison in our salmon.
We have to start the healing in this country now. And the Indian
tribes axe the only ones that can do that, the only ones that can
do that.
The State of Washington for over a hundred years has been man-
aging that resource, mismanaging it. And we come to that manage-
ment in 1974. The Judge heard the Indian speak, made a decision
confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Wash-
ington, made us co-managers in the Northwest, very unique.
But the management has to be continually throughout the whole
nation. And it has to be recognized by the United States Congress
through legislation of government to government, of self-govern-
ance, of funding.
It should be written very simple and very easy to coordinate with
the United States. Senate and House legislation is needed in fish
and wildlife management, so we don't have to run here every time
we turn around to tell you we need more money.
In the international treaty in the northwest, the salmon treaty,
our salmon leave our homeland and travel clean over to Japan and
in Russia. All those waters out there, jurisdiction after jurisdiction,
clean up in the cold water in Alaska. All over there.
And then our salmon comes home when it's adult, after seven
years. And it comes back to our homeland, right to our rivers, right
to our watersheds.
151
And our watersheds have to have a home for that salmon. And
that's been our problem.
The timber's all cut down, the mismanagement continued to hap-
pen.
We've been managers now for 19 years since the Bolt decision.
Nineteen years the Indian people have been managing our re-
source, and that's the salmon up there.
And the phase two part of that decision was the habitat. We're
trying to get everybody together in timber, fish and wildlife initia-
tives, water initiatives, work together to protect our resource.
The Indian people, in 1974, there was no salmon. A minimum
amount of salmon to manage. We have never gotten above that
minimum yet. We're working toward a historical level of manage-
ment somewhere in the future of a rebuild of all these stocks, but
we're still way down here.
And so we have many our needs. And we come to Congress and
tell that story.
I want to turn it over to Jim Anderson and Jim Harp. Jim has
some reports that we've already made to the United States Con-
gress and some reports that are very important that you under-
stand who we are, and how we do our business.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:!
152
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
6730 Martin Way E., Olympia, WA 98506 Phone (206) 438-1180
TESTIMONY
OF THE
NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
ON INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 18, 1993
INTRODUCTION
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and the member tribes we represent,
are pleased to be appear before the Subcommittee to provide you with a briefing
about fish and wildlife management issues of concern to the treaty Indian tribes in
western Washington.
We appreciate and support the Subcommittee's efforts to better understand the full
range of Indian fish and wildlife management. We also support, in concept, the
development of legislation which would more fully embrace tribal fish and wildlife
management on a governmental basis. Through such efforts will come clarification
of our natural resource related rights and responsibilities, as well as a better, more
complete understanding of tribal management efforts by the citizens of the United
States.
As you know, the tribes have endured a long history of being misunderstood by non-
Indian residents of this continent. Unfortunately, it seems at times that there has
been little progress in this regard. But part of our message is that there has been
progress in the Pacific Northwest. I also want you to know that with your continued
support for our management efforts and programs we will continue this progress and
show what a fine investment our efforts yield.
We do not ask for much. Just that which is already ours. Just those rights which we
have always retained. Just recognition of the sovereign status which has been
formally recognized, but frequently ignored by this country since its inception.
153
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 2
HISTORY OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
Just as the Constitution formed by the United States in the late 1700's derived much
of its roots from Indian tradition, so today do we continue to contribute to the good
of this country. Nowhere is this more the case than in the Pacific Northwest, where
the tribes have joined efforts with the state, as well as the federal government, to
cooperate in managing natural resources upon which we all depend.
Cultural perspectives of the Indian tribes are unique
You have no doubt heard many things about the natural resources of the Pacific
Northwest lately. You have heard of controversy between environmentalists and the
timber industry, as well as between fishermen and the power companies, irrigators
and many others.
As you continue to hear these cries, we ask you to remember the Indian. The tribes
have lived along all the rivers and waterways of the Pacific Northwest for thousands
of years. Through the millenniums, we have shaped our existence around the fish,
the trees and all other natural resources provided to sustain us. The meat kept us
healthy, as did the spiritual and cultural strength we derived from these resources.
Our tribal customs and ceremonies have always reflected harmony with nature,
kinship with her elements and deeply felt gratitude for the gifts provided by Mother
Earth.
Throughout history, tribes practiced fisheries management
Fisheries management is not a new thing to the tribes. We have managed fish from
time immemorial. We have practiced conservation through the management of
fishing efforts, as well as total utilization of harvested resources. We have provided
for escapement of fish to the spawning grounds, and even used certain
enhancement techniques long before non-Indians ever set foot on this land.
When non-Indians did come, they learned how to survive from the tribes. But it
wasn't long before they were claiming resources and lands for their own purposes,
at the expense of the Indian people. Not long after that, the white society set about
making treaties with the tribes, and herding tribal members onto small remnants of
Indian land.
Treaties signed but promises broken
Approximately 800 treaties were signed with the tribes in the 48 states. With each
we gave up more and more land and more and more resources. But each also
represented retention of certain lands, and retention of resource harvest rights for as
long as the grasses would grow and the rivers would run. With each also came a
154
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 3
constitutional guarantee of sovereign status and a trust relationship with the United
States government. Much of the land that was left to us was considered useless by
the non-Indians. And, as far as its ability to sustain us, the non-Indians were often
correct. At the time of Columbus' voyages, more than 14 million people lived in the
48-state area. By the early 1800's, less than a half million Indian people still existed.
Our culture and way of life was shattered
Of the 800 treaties established between the U.S. and the tribes, 370 were ratified by
the U.S. Senate. Tribes whose treaties were not ratified did not receive their lands
back. They were not permitted easy access to fish and game. They were, in fact, left
to die. Others, like our member tribes, who signed treaties during 1854-55, also felt
the cold hand of oppression. Our cultural ceremonies were banned. Our children
were taken from us and placed in government schools and forbidden to speak the
native language. Our young were introduced to a multitude of diseases and corrupt
bureaucracy. In little more than a century, the proud, culturally rich indigenous
people of this continent were interjected into our own "Dark Age".
Tribal self-determination to reclaim treaty protected rights
Nevertheless, we survived! We never forgot our heritage. From one generation to
the next, our descendants somehow taught us what they had been taught. In my
case, my father taught me to fish and to survive on the river. He taught me
appreciation for nature, and he taught me the value of family. He died in 1984, at
the age of 103. And now it is my turn to teach my sons, and to do what I can to
leave them a better world to live in.
In the 1960's and 70's, we Indians began to assert ourselves. We began to stand up
for guaranteed rights that had long been denied us. First through demonstration,
then through litigation, we fought for our rights, and we won.
LEGAL BACKGROUND OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
As mentioned earlier, in the 1850's, the United States entered into treaties with the
Indian tribes located in Washington Territory as part of the settlement of the West.
In those treaties, negotiated with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, the Indians
traded their interest in land of the territory for the exclusive use of lands within
reservations, the right of continued fishing and hunting, and other guarantees.
Tribes traded interest in territory for reservations and natural resource rights
Provisions of the Stevens Treaties guaranteeing the tribes reserved rights to fish
and wildlife were soon forgotten. State government and laws evolved to the point
\
155
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 4
that non-Indian settlers were allowed to monopolize the resources to the extent of
almost total exclusion of the Indians. Federal and state institutions also allowed the
urbanization and intensive development of the area, the rapid development of dams
for electric power, unbridled logging and irrigation, and pollution of the watersheds,
which reduced the quality and amount of accessible spawning grounds and rearing
habitat for the treaty protected fisheries resource.
US V. Washington litigation a turning point in natural resource management
As a result of the forgotten promises of the federal government, the tribes sought
redress and implementation of the treaties through the courts in the landmark
decision, U.S. v. Washington. In this case, the U.S. District Court confirmed that the
treaty Indian tribes have the right to take half the harvestable salmon originating in
Washington waters. Five years later, in 1979, this case was fully upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court. While it was not the first time the federal judiciary upheld Indian
rights, it did prove to be a monumental and significant case for Indian fishing and
hunting rights across the country.
State resistance to implement US v. Washington yielded to cooperation
The state of Washington's resistance to the implementation of the case was
legendary. Through 1983, the state stubbornly fought the tribes in court and sought
to avoid implementing the federal court rulings upholding the tribes' fishing rights.
Because the state and tribes could not work together, the court took over
management of the fisheries resource by default. Almost every management
decision was made by the court, with state and tribal biologist arguing before a
federal magistrate every step of the way.
It slowly became obvious that if the fish resource was of primary concern the job of
managing it must be taken out of the hands of the court and placed back in the
hands of professional managers--the tribes and the state of Washington. This
provided the impetus for the state and the tribes to move away from litigation as a
full time pursuit, and instead seek to develop cooperation.
EVOLUTION OF CO-MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
In 1984, the state and the tribes met at Port Ludlow, Washington, to jointly structure
a cooperative management concept. State and tribal officials emerged from this
meeting cautiously proclaiming that the "new era of cooperation" had arrived and
that negotiation and cooperation would be totally explored prior to the filing of any
last resort litigation.
It was not easy for tribes or the state leaders. Tribes had been used to winning
cases, but had not seen any substantive changes in management, in spite of court
orders. State officials were forced to reverse a century old tradition of dictating to
156
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 5
the tribes, and move toward recognizing tribal management prerogatives.
Nevertheless, each began to realize the value of this approach.
Early historical management planning efforts
The Puget Sound Management Plan was negotiated and entered into the court for
implementation. This plan has served as the framework for co-management
between the Puget Sound tribes and the state. The state and the tribes from the
Pacific Coast commenced negotiations for a management plan to implement the
Hoh V. Baldriqe case. This plan clarified weak-stock management responsibilities
for the state and federal entities, and laid the foundation for watershed planning.
Pacific Salmon Treaty
Still later, in conjunction with sports and commercial user groups, state and tribal
government officials worked with other states and the federal government to
produce the U.S.-Canada Salmon Interception Treaty. This international agreement
was obviously essential to good fishery management, but because of the complexity
of the task, and the divergent viewpoints within the United States, the treaty was not
successfully negotiated until cooperative management was in practice.
Its existence has fostered essential annual and long range international negotiations,
its implementation has moved fisheries management between the two countries
closer together for the good of the resource, and the federal commitment has
brought millions of dollars to Washington State alone over the past several years for
such efforts as management planning, fish marking, stream research, and data
analysis.
Co-management is the foundation, or cornerstone, upon which many outstanding
natural resource management programs have been constructed. Some of the
structures we have built have, in fact, become national and even international
models of cooperation in natural resource management.
COMPREHENSIVE TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
The tribal approach to natural resource management is based on the recognition
that, as Chief Seattle said, "all things are connected." This is a truth that transcends
boundaries, as well as management activities, cultural backgrounds and economic
pursuits. All things are connected, within a given watershed, as well as from one
watershed to another, and from the ocean to the mountains.
I
157
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 6
Centennial Accord and Environmental Memorandum of Understanding
The Centennial Accord, a historic document of great magnitude negotiated during
the state's centennial year of 1989, provides for a tribal/state government-to-
government relationship. Such a relationship, a first of its kind in the country, lays
out the basic elements of sovereignty and decision making between the parties.
This document is notable in the context of co-management because it
institutionalizes, to a great extent, the relationship between sovereigns. Nowhere is
such a relationship more critical than in the area of natural resource management
and environmental protection.
A State-Tribal Environmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) was also
negotiated between the tribes and the state of Washington. This document
identifies tribal and state environmental goals, and suggests a process to resolve
environmental issues on a government to government basis. A copy of the
Centennial Accord and the Environmental MOU are made available with this
testimony.
Each watershed is unique and requires individual as well as regional focus
Within given watersheds or basins, however, the specific status of habitat and fish
stocks will vary, due to differing terrain, water use and other environmental factors,
as well as harvest and other mortality levels. These undeniable facts forced the
conclusion that natural resource management must be tailored to suit local
situations, as well as regional and global realities. In some areas, fish runs are
strong and are comprised in large measure of wild stock. In others, wild stocks or
their habitat have been decimated, and habitat and enhancement efforts are
needed.
There have been those who have tried to point the finger at one industry or another,
or one cause or another, for declines in some fish runs. In some watersheds the
major causes are obvious, such as the Elwha River where dams have totally
blocked fish passage into headwaters that originate in the Olympic National Park.
But, for the most part, a multitude of causes contribute to fish management
problems, and thus the concept of comprehensive management is appropriate. It is
worth mentioning, incidently, that, given available habitat, most fish runs in the
Puget Sound and coastal regions are in relatively good condition, and that many of
these rivers support healthy percentages of wild fish. We credit the comprehensive,
cooperative management approach driven by the U.S. v. Washington decision for
this condition.
68-141 - 93 - 6
158
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 7
Clearly, however, with a host of problems coming from many directions (salmon
have to swim through every conceivable ownership in their migration), cooperative
management must be followed. And, it is the way we have gone for the past eight
years.
Timber-Fish-Wildlife Process
In addition to the U.S. -Canada Treaty mentioned earlier, the Timber-Fish-Wildlife
(TFW) Process is one of the most well known co-management-related efforts, which
brought together previously warring factions of the state, timber industry, tribes, and
environmental organizations. The process changed forest practice rules governing
state and private timber harvest and management. It established a forum for all
parties, including the tribes, to meet and worl< out differences. It also created a
scientific committee charged with arriving at the "scientific truth," and the
commitment to adapt forest management practices to the truth. Much has been said
about this process over the past several years, but the principal philosophy of TFW
demonstrates a truth we must all learn to accept... that people working together
accomplish worthwhile things, while people fighting one another create waste and
further hostility.
Watershed Planning
Cooperation in fisheries management has also been evident through regional
watershed planning. An example is the Watershed Planning Process, which has
called for the production of Comprehensive Resource Management Plans for every
basin in the U.S. v. Washington case area. Joint management plans for each
watershed are now in various stages of development. Harvest management,
production and habitat restoration and protection measures are critical elements in
each of these plans. Through the exchange of information and technology, as well
as eggs and broodstock, the state and the tribes have made great progress in
cooperative enhancement over the years.
Long Live the Kings and Nisqually Task Force
Some efforts, such as Long Live The Kings (which is having a positive impact in the
Gray's Harbor region), and the Nisqually Task Force (which has helped keep the
Nisqually River one of the most habitable rivers in the region) have, in fact, focussed
on individual watersheds. These efforts, and others like them, are initiatives by the
tribes and interested parties to solve problems and find solutions on the ground, in
individual watersheds.
Chelan Water Resources Planning Process
It was clear from the beginning of cooperative management that water would
eventually be a key link in the process. The health of fish, wildlife, vegetation and
159
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 8
people is utterly dependent on the availability of ample, clean water. Yet, even in the
Pacific Northwest, there are water shortage and quality problems that have
continually worsened over the years.
The planning and allocation of water resources in all western states over the past
century has consisted primarily of the granting of permits in response from
individuals and groups wishing to exploit this precious resource. But the realization
that water is a finite resource and that competitive demands for it easily exceed its
availability have increased the complexity of water management decisions.
In 1990, at the urging of the tribes, a series of tribal-state-user water resource
planning retreats was held. Top ranking officials of state, tribal and local government
interacted with representatives of business, agriculture, environmental organizations,
recreation, hydropower, commercial fishing and other water-related interests to
develop a cooperative water resource planning process.
The result was a process now known as the Chelan Process. The basic goals of the
"agreement" are to 1) manage water by hydrologic unit, 2) meet water needs first
with resources within each respective unit, 3) work toward the tribes' general long
term policy objective of achieving an overall net gain of the productive capacity of
fish and wildlife habitats, and 4) accommodate growrth in a manner that protects the
unique environment of the state. The process was not designed to determine or
resolve legal disputes. Nor was it intended to be the only option for water
management in the state. But the process does provide an historic opportunity to
promote ongoing cooperation in water management planning, and thus minimize
conflict.
Over the past two years, the Water Forum, a committee of affected parties,
including tribes, has met to resolve a comprehensive workplan. If successful, the
plan will advocate a statewide policy on instream flows, hydraulic continuity,
groundwater planning, and other critical water considerations. Also during this time,
pilot cooperative planning projects have been conducted on the Dungeness
watershed in western Washington and on the Methow watershed in eastern
Washington, to test the regional approach.
Puget Sound Water Quality Program
The tribes have been major participants in water quality, as well as water quantity-
oriented programs. The primary water quality-related programs involving tribes in
the state have been the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and a wide
range of water quality programs supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
160
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 9
The Washington State Legislature created PSWQA in 1985, and charged it with
developing a comprehensive plan for w/ater quality protection in Puget Sound, to be
implemented by state and local governments. The tribal seat, filled by NWIFC
Commissioner Terry Williams, was established by the state in recognition of the
important role of the tribes. The tribes have, as a result, been involved in every facet
of Puget Sound water quality management efforts, ranging from the nomination of
watersheds for inclusion in an early action program to address nonpoint source
pollution problems to conducting shellfish programs to protect and enhance that
resource.
Model Water Quality Program Initiative
The western Washington tribes have also linked up with state and local
governments in efforts to manage off-reservation water quality problems. Financial
support for tribal participation in this program has been made available to the tribes
from several sources, including the Department of Ecology's Centennial Clean
Water Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency. During the early years,
the tribal focus has been directed at restoring and maintaining riparian and marine
habitats that support finfish, shellfish and cultural resources. In addition, as
sovereigns, the tribes are involved in planning efforts that affect their jurisdiction. As
a result, each tribe also conducts on-reservation nonpoint source pollution and other
water quality programs.
Comprehensive water quality programs are also being conducted by the tribes in
conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, the
program will address specific water quality problems, propose changes in policy,
regulations and laws, and seek control of nonpoint and point pollution. Some of the
problems of particular concern cited by the tribes include sedimentation and water
temperature increases due to poorly regulated logging; bacterial and chemical
pollution from agriculture, as well as urban runoff and sewage; and increased
pollution of all sorts caused by voids in regulations or by non-enforcement of
existing regulations and laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Our experiences in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate a high level of achievement
and capability. Our management efforts stem from adherence to certain underlying
principles and philosophies. The success of our approach has often been affected
both positively and negatively by critical limiting factors. As such, we believe that it
is necessary for you understand some of our lessons and findings.
161
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 10
Tribes are managers of the resource, not simply users
It is important to note that tribes are natural resource managers. Such management
is culturally based, and predates written history. It is also embodied in treaties,
litigation and sometimes in legislation. Tribes are sovereign entities, and have
primary management on-reservation. As such it is important to understand that
tribes must have clear authority to enforce natural resource regulations on all lands
within reservation boundaries.
Shared responsibility with the states and federal governments on off-reservation
resources are critical to fulfill treaty responsibilities. In some cases tribes have been
clearly integrated in off-reservation planning and management efforts. In other
cases, tribes have been excluded, either deliberately or because federal policy did
afford tribal participation at the time of law passage. Support is needed for the
tribes to be able to participate on fishery management councils and inter-state
compacts as appropriate. It is also important that tribal governments have standing
and the ability to fully participate in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off-
reservation resources.
The federal government has obligations to the tribes
The federal government has outstanding obligations and responsibilities for the
protection and proper management of fish and wildlife. This obligation extends
beyond mere protection and management to insuring access and availability of
natural resources to the Indian people.
This obligation also transcends mere paternalism, and must reflect tribal interests
and approaches. It must reflect a government-to-government approach which
respects tribal self determination and self-governance. Tribes may be at different
levels of understanding or interest, and the federal government must be positioned
to meet the needs of the tribes on their terms, and not the terms of the federal
bureaucracy.
Effective tribal management is a function of infrastructure
The ability of the tribes to effectively manage the natural resources we have
depended upon since time immemorial requires that we have the capabilities for the
next century.
As a result of the US v. Washington decision. Congress appropriated funding for
each tribe to develop their individual management programs. In addition, the tribes
supported resources to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission to assist in
implementing legal obligations.
162
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 11
Resultant staff capabilities have been extremely valuable in allowing the tribes to
address critical management issues in a positive, solution oriented way. But if tribes
are to continue this effort, additional commitments to management and support staff
is essential. This is especially important given the increasing needs for
environmental protection.
Tribal infrastructure depends on adequate and stable funding
Tribal natural resource management programs are second to none in their
effectiveness and efficiency. But even the best programs faces limiting factors. One
such limit is adequate and stable financial support.
Tribal natural resource management programs have delivered many services to
Indian people over the past several years. The programs have built a strong
foundation for future community and economic growth. But without continued
financial support, the programs will not continue to deliver the level of services
needed to manage natural resources.
The sources of funding for tribal natural resource management programs have
included congressional appropriations through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Administration for Native Americans, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. In addition, other tribal revenues come from state programs and
tribally-imposed fish taxes and other tribally generated funds.
At the present time, the tribes do not have clear and specific access to Dingel-
Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, Wallop-Breaux funds, forest legacy programs or Land
and Water Conservation funds. Such access should be secured directly to the
tribes. It should not have to come through the affected states, which may have
different views of priorities and needs, and are often times adversarial to tribal
interests.
Without tribal involvement, overall natural resource management efforts will suffer,
harming all interests in the state, region, and country. Tribal shellfish management
programs, for example, are seen as a key to resolving critical issues surrounding
beach certification procedures. In addition, tribal enhancement planning efforts offer
an increase in finfish and shellfish availability for both tribal and other users. Tribes
have also extensively participated in a number of forums designed to protect treaty
harvest and habitat protection rights. These efforts, which benefit Indian and non-
Indian alike, will suffer without tribal infrastructure. The need for tribal programs
clearly exceeds existing funding levels.
163
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 12
It must be recognized that funding not only needs to be adequate in terms of
amount, but also needs to be stable in its delivery to the tribes. One major problem
tribes have faced over the past ten years has been fluctuations in funding due to
misguided bureaucratic initiatives, lack of cost-of-living adjustments, inflation factors,
and sequestration problems.
Shortages caused by these problems create difficulties securing and retaining key
staff. Tribes have seen a number of professional staff members leave their employ
to take positions with collateral agencies offering more stability and pay.
Training and professional development is critical
It is important for tribes to receive help with training and professional career
development. Such assistance is critical if the tribes are ever to be successful in
enticing Indian students into the field of natural resource management and
environmental protection.
In addition, tribal staff members need to keep current in their fields just like any
other professional. Opportunities for further education and training and placement
between federal agencies and tribes would be very useful to tribal programs.
CONCLUSION
Cooperation is the banner we wish to wave as we close out this millennium. Let us
all pull together, so we can accomplish what none of us can accomplish alone. Let
us all have the courage to take the stands we must take to secure a habitable world
for our children of tomorrow, as well as our workers of today. Let us stand up to
hard problems and make good decisions. Let us stand behind what we know is
right, and fortify these positions with the words and actions of truth and dignity.
We believe these objectives will be aided by legislation you are now considering, if
you focus on a few core concepts we have spoken to, and make them cornerstones
for an Indian fish and wildlife management act.
The Indian tribes are waking up in this country, we are leaving the "Dark Ages"
behind, and through cooperative efforts, we will be able to help save the natural
heritage of this land for the benefit of future generations.
Thank you.
164
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
Without objection, gentlemen, your statements will be fully made
part of the record. So I just wanted to note that.
Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, thank you very much.
I'll be brief, and I won't even try to follow Billy with my com-
ments.
I have the dubious distinction of often times having to follow
Billy, and it's always very flat compared to his presentation.
So what we would like to do is provide some information for the
record.
We have a document which was signed by the tribes in Washing-
ton State with the State of Washington called the Centennial Ac-
cord. And it was a govemment-to-govemment relationship that was
documented in 1989 and well m£ike that part of the record.
It I guess shows the type of relationship that the tribes in Wash-
ington State have worked out with the State of Washington to
work on issues in a cooperative and forthright manner, respecting
each others sovereignty.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, the documents will be
made part of the record.
[Editor's note. — Documents submitted by Mr. Anderson may be
found in the hearing files.]
Mr. Anderson. I have a couple of other excerpts from reports.
One in particular is the Report of the United States of America to
the United Nations' Conference on Environment and Development,
in which the Northwest Tribal efforts were highlighted as a good
example of how tribes and the state and federal government can
work together in cooperative natural resources management.
There's a memorandum of understanding that the tribes have ne-
gotiated with the State of Washington, it talks about how to work
out environmental issues without necessarily litigating issues. It
does reserve the opportunity to litigate, and that is available here.
And finally, I have a series of reports, one on timber, fish, wild-
life, one on the tribal water quality program, and one on our fish-
ery management program and our annual report that go into great
detail about programs that Billy has talked about, and show how
we've been able to package certain things.
And then, finally, we have a video tape here with four different
videos on it, one about the Fish Commission and our member
tribes, one on shell fish, negotiations £ind litigation that's very im-
portant to us right now, one on the timber, fish, wildlife initiative,
which was a very ground-breaking pioneering effort, and finally a
video that won an Emmy called "Moon's Prayer," and that talks
about the tribal perspectives on the environment. And it was very
well received, seen by hundreds of thousands of people in the Pa-
cific Northwest.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
[Editor's note. — The videotape may be found in the hearing
files.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to ask you, Mr. Anderson, do you
have just one tape?
Mr. Anderson. I have one tape, but I'd be very glad to make
other tapes available.
165
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me offer this as a suggestion for the
tribal members of the organization.
It would be very nice to have copies of the tapes be made to the
members of the subcommittee specifically, and maybe with just a
courtesy letter inviting the members on their own privacy and op-
portunity they might have, so they might see the videos that you
have indicated earlier.
I think it'll be a real good orientation for the members of the sub-
committee if they are given copies of the videos.
Mr. Anderson. We will do that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Harp?
STATEMENT OF JIM HARP
Mr. Harp. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
I'm pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views
of the Quinault Indian Nation regarding concerns pertaining to the
management of fish, wildlife, and plants.
I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative
of the Quinault Indian Nation up in the State of Washington, on
the coast of Washington.
We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal
views on how the United States could improve the administration
of its trust responsibilities towards Indian tribes.
We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Af-
fairs has also initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope
for legislative action concerning management of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources of concern to Indian tribes, and urge that the
House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to ultimately
develop legislation that can be enacted into law.
I would like to premise our statement with a few remarks that
may help provide perspective and understanding of our views.
Fish, wildlife, and plants have been central to our culture, econ-
omy and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the United
States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to himt,
fish, and gather.
Since then, time and again, Indian people have been jailed,
abused, and forced to the courts when attempting to exercise trea-
ty-protected rights. Only after lengthy and costly litigation affirm-
ing our rights, has the United States been willing to provide finan-
cial resources for management of the resources which comprise our
heritage.
In effect, the United States has historically taken the posture
that our treaties have no meaning unless and until the courts say
they do.
We find such attitudes abominable. They have led to the deple-
tion of important resources, erosion of sovereignty, reduction in
management effectiveness, and diminishment of the legacy that we
leave our children.
The government to government relationship between Indian
tribes and the United States which flows from the Constitution,
treaties, and courses of dealings, must be strengthened and re-
spected.
166
This relationship has been defined by numerous pieces of legisla-
tion and executive orders, administered by the Executive Branch,
and interpreted by the courts.
The United States has obligations and responsibilities for protec-
tion, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildhfe, pl£ints,
soil, and water, so as to ensure access, sustained availability and
suitability for use by Indian tribes and Alaska native peoples.
The United States should serve as an advocate for the preserva-
tion and exercise of these treaty rights, not sit idly by, a silent wit-
ness to their erosion.
We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few
fundamental cornerstones to establish the foundation for future ini-
tiatives in fish and wildlife management.
The foremost issue is to affirm the commitment of the United
States to support, strengthen, and enhance tribal management ca-
pabilities. This commitment should be reflected in two fundamental
areas.
First, tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management
direction on-reservation should be fully supported. Our reservation
was established as a permanent homeland for the people of the
Quinault Nation.
The policy of allotment has led to the fractionation and checker
boarding of land on many reservations across the country.
Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enor-
mous problems when attempting to implement responsible resource
management.
Contending with trespass violations and enforcement of fish and
game regulations has become an administrative nightmare, fraught
with jurisdictional impediments to effective resource management.
These problems are especially severe for fish and wildlife re-
sources which of course recognize no political or ownership bound-
aries.
We believe that the Congress and the Administration should rec-
ognize the primacy of tribal rights to manage fish and wildlife re-
sources on-reservation. Support should be provided for development
of effective enforcement of tribal fish and wildlife codes and regula-
tions to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation bound-
aries.
In addition, adequate funding and professional development
training programs are needed to improve tribal management skills
and capacities.
Second, the standing of tribal governments to participate in deci-
sions involving off-reservation resource management issues, at
least on a par with the states, should be supported.
An affected tribal government should, at its own option, be enti-
tled to take part in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off-res-
ervation resources of concern.
For example, standing for tribes to fully participate in specific
regulatory activities, such as habitat protection, in stream flows,
water quality, and FERC licensing, should be recognized.
Further, current programs within the federal government pro-
vide for agreements with states for management direction of lands
and resources, some of which Indian tribes have vital interests.
This occurs without tribal consultation and participation.
167
Prescriptive measures are needed to prevent actions £ind agree-
ments without tribal participation that involve either federal or on-
reservation lands.
This would prevent agreements between states and federal agen-
cies without participation and agreement of the affected tribes.
Another example is, presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional
fishery management councils have direct responsibility for develop-
ing ocean fishery management plans affecting the numerous salm-
on and other marine resources of Indian tribes.
While these councils provide for representation by states, there
is no specific provision for representation by Indian tribal govern-
ments.
I am privileged to serve as an at-large voting member of the Pa-
cific Fishery Management Council for the State of Washington.
However, specific representation for tribal governments is clearly
warranted and should be mandated by law.
In closing, the Quinault Nation stands ready to work with the
Committee in developing reasoned and responsible approaches to-
ward improving the management of our natural resource heritage.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Harp follows:]
168
Quinault Indian Nation
POST OFFICE BOX 189 I TAHOLAH, WASHINGTON 98587 .: TELEPHONE (206)276-8211
TESTIMONY OF JIM HARP ON BEHALF OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
REGARDING LEGISLATION CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE
RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO INDIAN COMMUNITIES
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 18, 1993
I am pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views of the
Quinault Indian Nation regarding concerns pertaining to management of fish, wildlife,
and plants. I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative of the
Quinault Nation.
We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal views on how
the United States could improve the administration of its trust responsibilities toward
Indian tribes. We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs has
also initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope for legislative action
concerning management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of concern to Indian
tribes and urge that the House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to
ultimately develop legislation that can be enacted into law.
I would like to premise our statement with a few remarks that may help provide
perspective and understanding of our views. Fish, wildlife, and plants have been
central to our culture, economy, and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the
United States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to hunt, fish, and
gather. Since then, time and again, Indian people been jailed, abused, and forced to
the courts when attempting to exercise treaty-protected rights. Only after lengthy and
costly litigation affirming our rights, has the United States been willing to provide
financial resources for management of the resources which comprise our heritage. In
effect, the United States has historically taken the posture that our Treaties have no
meaning unless and until the courts say they do. We find such attitudes abominable.
They have led to the depletion of important resources, erosion of sovereignty,
reduction in management effectiveness, and diminishment of the legacy that we leave
our children.
169
Testimony of Jim Harp, QIN Page 2
Indian Fish & Wildlife Enhancement February 18, 1993
The government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the
United States which flows from the Constitution, treaties, and course of dealings
must be strengthened and respected. This relationship has been defined by numerous
pieces of legislation and executive orders, administered by the Executive Branch, and
Interpreted by the courts. The United States has obligations and responsibilities for
protection, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, soil, and
water ~ so as to insure access, sustained availability and suitability for use by Indian
tribes (and Alaska native peoples). The United States should serve as an advocate for
the preservation and exercise of these treaty rights, not sit idly a by silent witness to
their erosion.
We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few fundamental
"cornerstones" to establish the foundation for future initiatives in fish & wildlife
management. The foremost issue is to affirm the commitment of the United States
to support, strengthen, and enhance tribal management capabilities. This commitment
should be reflected in two fundamental areas:
First, tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management direction on-
reservation should be fully supported. Our reservation was established as a
permanent homeland for the people of the Quinault Nation. The policy of allotment
has led to the fractionation and checker boarding of land on many reservations across
the country. Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enormous
problems when attempting to implement responsible resource management.
Contending with trespass violations and enforcement of fish and game regulations has
become an administrative nightmare, fraught with jurisdictional impediments to
effective resource management. These problems are especially severe for fish and
wildlife resources which, of course, recognize no political or ownership boundaries.
We believe that the Congress and the Administration should recognize the
primacy of tribal rights to manage fish and wildlife resources on-reservation. Support
should be provided for development and effective enforcement of tribal fish and
wildlife codes and regulations to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation
boundaries. In addition, adequate funding and professional development training
programs are needed to improve tribal management skills and capacities.
Second, the standing of tribal governments to participate in decisions involving
off-reservation resource management issues, at least on a par with states, should be
supported. An affected tribal government should, at its own option, be entitled to
take part in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off -reservation resources of concern.
For example, standing for tribes to fully participate in specific regulatory activities,
such as habitat protection, in stream flows, water quality, and FERC licensing should
be recognized. Further, current programs within the Federal government provide for
170
Testimony of Jim Harp, QIN Page 3
Indian Fish & Wildlife Enhancement February 18, 1993
agreements with states for management direction of lands and resources, some of
which Indian tribes have vital interests. This occurs without tribal consultation and
participation. Prescriptive measures are needed to prevent actions and agreements
without tribal participation that involve either federal or on-reservation lands. This
would prevent agreements between states and federal agencies without participation
and agreement of affected tribes. Presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional fishery
management councils have direct responsibility for developing ocean fishery
management plans affecting the numerous salmon and other marine resources of
Indian tribes. While these councils provide for representation by states, there is no
specific provision for representation by Indian tribal governments. I am privileged to
sit as an at-large member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the State of
Washington, however, specific representation for tribal governments is clearly
warranted and should be mandated by law.
The Quinault Nation stands ready to work with the Committee in developing
reasoned and responsible approaches toward improving the management of our
natural resource heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
topic.
171
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Harp.
A couple of observations, and I will then ask a couple more ques-
tions to the members of the panel.
One of the things that I've noted over the years is that some-
times, perhaps with sincere and good intentions, several tribal or-
ganizations hire consultant firms here in Washington to represent
their interests.
But one of the things that I would certainly like to convey and
to express this interest to the tribes is that whenever you're here
in Washington, please make every effort to see the members them-
selves.
Sometimes I think our tribal members think that only the con-
sultant firms are the only ones that can see the members.
There's nothing sacred about you not having to come and visit us
directly. Because this lobbying game that goes on sometimes, in my
humble opinion, gets lost in the quagmire of seeing that sometimes
the information, or you don't really see the members themselves,
and the message just doesn't come across.
So I would Tike to encourage and pass the word out to Indian
country, when you are here in Washington, please make every ef-
fort to visit the member delegations of your states, or even the
members of the given subcommittees, whether it be in the Senate
or on the House side.
Visit with them directly. Talk to them.
That's why we're here.
And I would like to give that alert to all the tribal organizations,
especially for the tribsQ leaders when they do come to Washington.
Please make it, if you're working through our consultant firms or
whatever organizations that do it, make sure that you require that
they make appointments for you, and have you come visit with us
directly. Tell us what your problems are.
I never see many of our tribal fi:iends who come fi"om the various
states, and I wonder why.
And it seems that the only chance that I get to visit — and I'm
sure this is true with other members — is when we have hearings.
Then right after the hearing, everybody disappears.
And I would like to make that note to encourage as many of our
Native American leaders to come and visit with the members di-
rectly. Make appointments with us. Tell us what your problems
are.
Now I'm sure that there may be some sense of hesitation about
not being able to speak proper English.
I'm still learning the Enghsh language. My mom, to her dying
day, could hardly speak English. But English is only a tool. And
if you need to have a translator, then get yourself a translator, and
make it known what your wishes are.
This is one of the problems. Our whole educational system and
the theories and the problems that affect Native Americans is the
same thing that happened to us.
We don't have a Bureau of Indian Affairs, but we have what I
call an isolated Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we have the same
problems that you are confronted with.
And I don't mean to say this in a derogatory way, meanmg that
those people downtown are evil. But sometimes with the best and
172
sincere efforts, somehow things get lost in the cracks. And some-
times you have to keep ringing that bell, you have to keep
scrinching in and making sure that somebody hears and pays a lit-
tle more attention to the problems affecting Native Americans.
So I would really like to pass that word onto all of our tribal
leaders and friends out in Indian country. Come and visit the mem-
bers. Make appointments with them. There's nothing sacred about
that.
Sometimes you need to not depend too much on our consultant
friends. You come and see us. And if you think you have broken
English, I can speak broken English too, you know.
They call it pidgin English in Hawaii, but I really would like to
offer that sense of encouragement to our friends.
And again I go back to Mr. Poynter's comments that were made
earlier. I couldn't agree with him more. And this is the directing
that the Chairman definitely is going to take, a very active role.
He's going to plan a series of hearings in the coming weeks and
months.
It is our hope that we will prepare a comprehensive legislation
that will affect the needs of Native Americans dealing with wildlife
and services and dealing with their economic needs.
So I'm very encouraged. And this is not taking anything away
from Chairman Miller and what he's had to do on an ad hoc basis
since he took over the chairmanship of this Committee.
But just the fact that Congressman Richardson in his initiative
and the concerns that he's had over the years, that we've worked
very closely together, and the fact that we now have an official sub-
committee doing this, is a big, big change, dramatic change in
what's happening here in the Congress.
And I would also suggest to have you write letters directly to the
Chairman, and give him a sense of encouragement. You know,
sometimes we get very depressed down here. And we don't know
from our heads down to our toes if we're doing the right thing our-
selves.
So give us a sense of direction. Let us know what's going on in
Indian country. Sometimes, with good intentions, our friends down-
town as well as even here, we don't know what's going on.
But I think a direct communication, phone calls, or whatever it
is that needs to get the attention not only of the Congress, but as
well as of the Administration, we need to do it.
I expressed my sense of frustration, I recall, last year. For four
years, it's been on the books and by-law, that we're to establish a
National Conference of Indian Education. Well, we did it but it was
on a last minute basis, and was kind of a quick put together thing.
We had the conference, so we have another study, after about a
thousand other studies and conferences and meetings and commis-
sions and councils, all retreads, in my humble opinion, knowing
that the same problems that we're going to be talking about this
year in and year out.
But I really really hope that we're going to get some results this
time.
I want to commend Mr. Frank for his directness, and certainly
you couldn't have said it better.
173
This is the constant theme that I've heard over and over again
over the years. Indian tribes want funding directly to go to them
to manage their affairs.
Now here's the other side of the coin to this issue, Mr. Frank.
And there are those of us who said, well, but we have to have some
sense of accountability. This is the taxpayers' money. How are we
going to make sure that that money is spent properly, and that it's
not going to be wasted or mismanaged or there's any sense of cor-
ruption or fraud.
This is the kind of thing that has its Washington mentality going
on. And say, well, we have to have some sense of accountability for
it.
So that's the other side of the coin.
And perhaps maybe we can get better suggestions or rec-
ommendations from Indian country, and perhaps it can be proven
that Indian tribes can do a better job in managing the money that
comes from the American taxpayers' pocket.
So this is the kind of thing that goes on here. And hopefully you
can give us better recommendations on how we can make improve-
ments in this.
I appreciate Chief Wallulatum's statement. You're not here ask-
ing for funds. You're here just to give you better management
skills.
Maybe this is another area that the Department of the Interior
can look at.
You're not here to ask for handouts. You just want something to
make you more self-sufficient. This is another constant theme that
I hear from our tribal friends across the country.
I have asked previously for the opinions of the previous panel
about how they feel about the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as
the Congress.
But I think pretty much we've gotten a sense of how this hearing
is starting. And please bear in mind that this is just the begin-
ning,.
Like I said, I'm very very encouraged that the Chairman is gomg
to bring our Committee to Indian country, rather than to always
constantly have Indian country coming to Washington. I think it's
high time that Washington needs to come and see for themselves,
the members especially, what's happening out there.
And I also want to express my profound reverence and respect
for High Chief Wallulatum and Mr. Frank. And I think this is a
one, constant cultural theme that I would like to say, you know,
Steve and I are nothing but kids.
And I always remember what Emerson said. That the years
teach much which the days never know. And I always make that
special note, my most profound respect for our elders here this
morning.
And I really, really appreciate your presence. It's given me a
sense of greater responsibility and commitment, and I'm sure Steve
feels the same way.
But we need guidance, we need your wisdom. All the smarts and
education don't mean beans if we don't have the guidance from our
elders. And I just want to let Chief Wallulatum know that and Mr.
Frank.
174
I'm a chief in my own culture, but I'm a small chief. In fact,
when the members of the council of chiefs in my village meet, my
chieftain title is so small that I sit under a coconut tree outside the
chiefs' council meeting.
But nevertheless, it's my most profound respect for the culture,
and this is something that I'm sure that there is a great sensitivity
by the members to do this.
But we do this both for the culture, but we also need to be pro-
gressive in our thinldng. And the world has changed, and I couldn't
agree more with Mr. Frank about the Bolt decision. It's made a tre-
mendous impact on this whole issue of the rights of Indian to fish
and wildlife.
It's a controversial one, the problems with the rights of the states
versus the federal government with the tribes. But I think we have
to be constantly at it, or else things get lost on the way.
So I just want to give that sense of my feelings and certainly to
the members of the panel and my respect for your being here this
morning.
Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman. This is part of my little, I've got a
little history for you.
And I've got to say it to you. I can't say it to anybody else on
the panel, but because of where you're fi-om.
But before the turn of the century, and that's a long time ago,
well, there's some warm water comes by off of our coast about 40
or 50 miles off of the mainland.
And it comes around, from Alaska, it comes around and along
the Pacific Coast, and then it goes down in the South American
coast toward your coimtry. And it's documented that you have
some of our logs, and that you made csinoes out of them and pad-
dles.
And canoes are part of our culture and spiritual life and the pad-
dles that we have and make, and how we train our children to be
good paddlers, and now even our women are paddlers. And you
guys are certainly canoe people.
But those logs, how they got out into that ocean, was from all
the storms that took place and the high water and the snow runoff
and the different things that takes place up there.
Of course, there was hemlock, there was cedar, there was fir, dif-
ferent other types of spruce and different things that went out into
the ocean.
And sooner or later, they reached your country. And so that con-
nected us a lot of ways, in more ways than one. It connected us
people.
And now today we can talk about how that connection was made.
But we talk about that in our homeland and about your people over
in those islands out there, because we're all one people. And now
we're related to one another in different ways.
We go to school with each other, and our cultures have met. But
at that pEirticular time, it met by our natural resource, and that
was by logs in the way.
And I just wanted to share that story with you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Frank, I appreciate that.
175
I've always said, with humor, to my Native American cousins
here that I don't know what happened to the rest of you, but we
were the brave ones that went out into the ocean and sought out
the mysteries out there.
Mr. Frank. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In the western sea.
You mentioned canoes. It's interesting to note that the cata-
maran, as we know them today, are the fastest vessels in the
world. But if you don't reahze it, that's a prototype of the Polyne-
sian double hull canoe, believe it or not.
I was privileged to sail from Tahiti to Hawaii, which is about a
2700 mile distance, on a prototype Polynesia double hull canoe,
about five years ago. And we sailed by non-instrument; in other
words, strictly on the waves and the stars and the moon, the whole
works.
And I wanted to say that it was one of the most spiritual experi-
ences that I've ever had in my hfe. It was just like I was living a
thousand years ago among my ancestors.
And so I know that your fishing methods are exactly the same
as ours, believe it or not.
And there is some discussion about even our cousins, the Maoris
in New Zealand, do the same type of fishing methods the way you
do. And the question is how is it, maybe by coincidence.
I'd like to think that it was more than just coincidence.
But I really appreciate your comment on this issue. And I cer-
tainly want to thguik you gentlemen and all the members who have
testified earlier.
Please, I encourage you, write letters to the Chairman, let him
know how you feel about these issues. Let's do something solid this
time around concerning the needs of our Native American commu-
nities on wildlife and fisheries.
And hopefully we will come up with a comprehensive piece of leg-
islation in the coming weeks or months. And it's all going to de-
pend on the kind of input that we get from Indian country.
And this is the kind of thing that I know the Chairman is look-
ing forward to.
Again, I want to sincerely thank all of you for being here this
morning.
I welcome you to come and visit my office. Please do so, because
I'm leaving tomorrow. But, please, before you do come to Washing-
ton, make a sincere effort. Come and visit the members. Let them
know how you feel about these things.
And, again, I want to thank all of you, and I wish you Godspeed
and safe return to your homes.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
subject to call of the Chair.]
APPENDIX
February 18, 1993
Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
TESTIMONY OF FEJUINAND MARTINEAU
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ferdinand
Martlneau and I am submitting this written statement to you as the
Executive Director of the 1854 Authority. The Authority is an
inter-trlbal organization created by three of the signatories of
the Treaty of 1854 between the United States and the Lake Superior
Chippewa. The Authority oversees the exercise of rights that were
reserved In the 5 million acres that was ceded by the treaty in
what is now Northeastern Minnesota. This area includes the western
boundary of Lake Superior, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
in Minnesota, Superior National Forest, and several smaller state
forests and parks. The Bands entered Into litigation in 1985 in the
case of Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior, et. al v. State of
Minnesota et. al . in a dispute arising under Article Eleven of the
Treaty of 1854. Article Eleven states that the Chippewa residing
in the territory ceded by the Treaty of 1854 " shall have the right
to hunt and fish therein... ". As litigation proceeded both sides
recognized the long term bitter consequences associated with this
type of litigation in other areas around the country and requested
a continuance to try to negotiate a settlement. The Bands goal in
these negotiations was to reach a settlement that established a
relationship with the State and not to alter any rights under the
Treaty of 1854. The negotiations resulted in the consummation of
an Agreement between the Bands and the State that recognized the
Bands rights In the Ceded Territory and required the development
of an off-reservation conservation code to manage the harvest of
the natural resources. The Bands deemed it necessary to develop an
Infrastructure for the administration, biological, enforcement,
financial, legal and public relation. The Authority has been in the
process of trying to develop the infrastructure but because of
budget limitations has had only limited success.
Funding, or rather the lack of it, has hampered the Authority. As
with all new initiative in Indian Country, the Authority has not
had the benefit of any pre-existing source of funds and has had to
go directly to Congress for an appropriation. Since 1988 the
Authority has came to Congress and requested funds to help in the
development of it's infrastructure. Each year has been a success
and a failure for the Authority. The Authority has had success in
being able to secure the funds necessary to maintain the limited
services that it's members have come to expect, but the Authority
has not been able to secure the amount that was requested.
Currently the Authority receives approximately S300,000 per year.
The current request that will be presented to Congress later this
session is for approximately 32,000,000. The Authority currently
employs 5 conservation officers that have the responsibility of
patrolling the Ceded Territory (5,000,000 acres). The State
currently employs 45 C.O's. to patrol the same area. The
Authority's officers currently work as needed, which means that the
coverage is sporadic and that the officers are not able to maintain
a consistent or continuous schedule. In order to help alleviate
this situation the Authority worked out a cross-deputization
agreement with the State. All the conservation officers in the
Ceded Territory now are empowered to enforce each others code. This
agreement has not worked to the Authority's advantage as it has
(177)
178
given it's officers more to do while in the field. The Authority
currently operates a court system, a registration system and an
administrative system. Each of these are staffed by a vei-y limited
amount of personnel who have to handle more than their own job. The
Authority does not employ any biological, financial, legal or
public relations staff, not because there is no need for them but,
because the money is not available to hire them. As stated earlier
there is 5 million acres of land, rivers and lakes that make up the
Ceded Territory.
Within the Ceded Territory the Authority has to deal with a variety
of governmental agencies. Each having it's own bureaucratic system
of regulations that they must follow. Each agency must be worked
with on an individual basis to bring them up to date with current
laws and how they affect their relationship with the Authority and
the practice of Treaty Rights in the Ceded Territory. Although the
Authority has implemented a conservation code to regulate their
members exercise of rights in the Ceded Territory, they have been
slow in their acceptance that the Authority has jurisdiction over
it ' s member in the harvest of the natural resources in the Ceded
Territory. The Authority's presence and public education remain a
high priority for the Bands . The Authority continues to work within
the established framework to deal with the current issues in the
protection of Treaty Rights.
The environmental issues such as mining, timber harvest, disposal
of hazardous material, air and water quality and a variety of other
similar concerns have always been the forefront for the Bands of
the Lake Superior Chippewa. The environment was an integral part
of their lifestyle, culture and religion. All band members
supported their way of life through harvest of the natural
resources around them. Today that tradition continues through the
Authority. The Bands have enacted very strict legislation on their
reservations and are in the development stages for the Ceded
Territory to protect this way of life for future generations of
the Bands. Band members are beginning to recognize the efforts of
the Authority and are starting to practice traditional values more
openly.
Prior to the passage of P. L. 93-638 the Indian Self Determination
and Education Act, tribal government played a limited role in the
determination of it's future. The government enacted legislation
designed to bring the Indian into the dominant society and to take
away the traditional form of government. There was legislation that
diminished the land base of the Bands and placed large portion of
the reservations into private ownership, both Indian and non
Indian. Most of this was done with little or no input from the
Bands. Since P. L. 93-638 tribal governments have taken an active
roll in the determination of their future. The Bands in Minnesota
developed their infrastructures to handle the development
reservations, and have begun to participate in the political
process to develop good relationships with all the elected
officials who represent them on a state and national level. They
have became involved with lobbying efforts to effect the outcome
179
of legislation that affects them. Recently the Bands have turned
the focus of their efforts to the Ceded Territory. The Bands
recognized that the need for the natural resources to maintain the
traditional lifestyle has placed a burden on reservation resources
and they must now begin to use the Ceded Territory resources. As
the Bands expand the practice of Treaty Rights outside their
reservations new questions arise about the trust responsibility of
the B. I. A. and the U. S. Government and the Bands.
Clearly the B. I. A. has a trust responsibility on reservation but,
just as clearly, not off the reservation. The system currently in
place has a clear delineation of how the Bands and the B. I. A.
work together with on reservation concerns. The problems surface
when the Bands begin to exercise off reservation rights. There is
a long term litigation process that is costly to the Bands and no
clear role for B. I. A. to play. The Bands have to depend upon
their own financial resources to undertake this battle and, if
successful, the B. I. A. then becomes a fund mechanism for them.
Although this statement is short in words the problems outlined
here could fill several volumes of testimony.
Legislation should be enacted that will allow the Bands access to
the long term funding necessary to develop the infrastructure to
enable them to be co-managers of the natural resources in the Ceded
Territory. The jurisdictional questions should be dealt with by the
agencies in negotiations as they currently are. The environmental
issues will cease to be a concern once the infrastructure has the
staff to deal with them in an informed manner. Tribal participation
is always a concern with the development of legislation and should
be addressed throughout the whole process. The trust responsibility
of the United States and the relationship between tribal government
should be cleared up so all citizens understand it. The problems
that exist in Indian Country are old. They are a part of our past,
our present and unless things change our future. Once the problems
of funding tribal programs is stable, the jurisdiction that the
tribes retained in the Ceded Territory is clear, the enactment of
tribal legislation for the protection of the environment of the
Ceded Territory's natural resources is recognized, there is tribal
participation in legislation and the trust responsibility of the
United States between Indian people is clear accepted, then, the
Bands will be recognized as the true keepers of the environment
that they are.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement before your
committee in behalf of the Lake Superior Chippewa Bands of Bois
Forte and Grand Portage.
Megwich.
180
THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
San Carlos Avenue
P.O. BoxO
San Carlos. Arizona 85550
(602) 475-2361
Fax (602)475-2567
Harrison Talgo, Sr.
Tribal Chairman
Raymond Stanley
Tnbal Vice Chairman
STATEMENT OF HARRISON TALGO SR, CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE
TRIBE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS,
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, REGARDING FISH AND WILDLIFE
ACTIVITIES
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Mr. Chairman, my name is Harrison Talgo, Sr. I am Chairman of the
San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona. I appreciate this opportunity
to comment on problems encountered by the San Carlos Apache Tribe
in its efforts to manage its wildlife populations for protection
of endangered or threatened species and for subsistence hunting
by members of the Tribe and sports hunting by visitors to our
Reservation. This hearing will focus attention on one of the most
neglected subjects of Federal trust management of Indian lands
and their resources.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe recommends that legislation be
enacted to (1) establish realistic funding levels for wildlife
management activities; (2) improve coordination of wildlife
management of nearby Federal and state lands with tribal
management plans; and (3) provide scholarships and training to
enable tribes to employ their own members in wildlife management
activities. I will direct my remarks today to the need for
equitable levels of funding.
The B
mill i
third
treat
Great
is f o
Manag
avail
codes
wildl
the m
tribe
urea
on f
s is
y fi
Lak
r tr
emen
able
, or
ife
ulti
s an
u of I nd
or Wildl
dedicat
shing-ri
es regio
ibal hat
t/ Devel
, under
dinances
resource
disc ipl i
d intert
ian Affair
ife and Pa
ed for use
ghts oblig
ns. Of the
chery O&M ,
opment Pro
638 contra
, and regu
s on mill
nary corape
ribal fish
s funding for
rks. Of this
of f-reservat
ations, chief
remaining S9
leaving S 7 . 0
grams ( TMDP > .
cts , to enabl
lations for c
ions of acres
tence and pro
and wildlife
FY 1
amoun
ion i
ly in
. 5 mi
mill
TMDP
e tri
onser
of t
f essi
orga
993 prov
t approx
n connec
the Nor
llion, $
ion for
funds a
bes to
ving fis
rust Ian'
onal exp
niza t ion
ides S28
imately two-
tion with
thwest and
2 . 5 million
Tribal
re
develop
h and
d; develop
ertise of
s; create
181
job- and income-producing programs; and manage public use and
tourism. Of the entire $28 million, less than 2% is available for
management of big-game and bird populations on approximately 51
million acres of trust land. This works out to less than 2 cents
per acre. The way the BIA structures its budget obscures the fact
that very little of its wildlife and parks fund go to on-
reservation wildlife management. We suggest that the Subcommittee
consult with the BIA to arrive at a budget structure that more
clearly displays how its funds are deployed to meet its several
important on-reservat ion missions and to the extent feasible
distinguish funding for fish, on the one hand, and all other
species, on the other.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe receives $65,000 of TMDP funds for
wildlife management on its 1.8 million-acre reservation (the
fourth largest in the nation) or about 3 1/2 cents per acre. The
Tribe also has allocated approximately $55,000 of other BIA funds
to wildlife management at the cost of reduced funding for
programs under the BIA's tribal priority system for allocation of
appropriated funds. As a measure of the Tribe's concern for its
wildlife resources, it contributes about $696,000 of its Tribal
funds, although it is one of the most impoverished tribes in the
nation. With these funds, the Tribe tries to manage 75 species of
mammals and 250 species of birds. Among the bird population are
the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl and
northern goshawk. The Mohave desert tortoise is also documented.
These species are designated as endangered or threatened species
or are candidates for designation. The Tribe's wildlife funding
needs and management structure are described in the statement of
Mr. Brian Czech, Director of the San Carlos Apache Recreation and
Wildlife Department, which is appended to ray statement.
It is our understanding that other land management agencies of
the Federal government with comparable land and wildlife
resources spend as much as 10 times more money on wildlife
management per acre than the BIA makes available for management
on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. We suggest that the
Subcommittee ask the Department of the Interior and Forest
Service to provide figures on comparative levels of funding.
It has been suggested that Indian tribes should be made eligible
to receive direct Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife
Restoration ( Dingell-Johnson , Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux
programs) and Land and Water Conservation funds. Subject to
certain conditions, we support this suggestion. We wish to
stress, however, that tribes should be eligible for direct
funding from these sources just as the United States territories,
the District of Columbia, and the states are. At present, tribes
must apply to the states for a share of these funds. This
requirement violates the spirit of the government-to-government
182
relationship between the United States and the tribes and invites
state interference in the internal affairs of the tribes.
We further highlight our concern that the use of these funds
requires that a tribe allow public hunting on its reservation.
Much of our Reservation is open to of f -reservation hunters and
anglers, but not all of it. At least one tribe we know of has
closed its entire reservation to public hunting. The Federal
obligation to tribes respecting the protection and management of
their trust resources must not be put at the sufferance of state
governments and off-reservation hunters and fishers.
We believe the primary source of Federal funds for tribal
wildlife management should be the same source that provides funds
for other Federal land management agencies--appropriated funds
from the Treasury.
In conclusion, the San Carlos Apache Tribe requests that
legislation be enacted to establish funding standards which are
not less than those of other Federal land management agencies
with comparable land and wildlife resources and that such funds
be available to a tribe without regard to whether or not the
reservation is open, closed, or partly closed to public use or
the hunting of, or fishing for, certain species is prohibited.
Your interest in this vitally important issue and your long-
standing commitment to a better day for Indian tribes are deeply
appreciated .
I
183
THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
RECREATION & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 97
San Carlos. Arizona 85550
(602) 475-2653
(602) 475-2343
BRIAN CZECH
Director
COMMISSIONERS
Paul Nosie. Jf
Dennis Nelson
Gibson Bom
STATEMENT OF BRIAN CZECH (DIRECTOR, SAN CARLOS RECREATION &
WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE) TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
February 16, 1994
The San Carlos Apache Tribe, Recreation & Wildlife Department, very much appreciates the opportunity
to present this testimony to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs.
The most important point in this testimony is that the Tribe needs federal wildlife funding that is
consistent with funding of landholdings administered by the US Forest Service, Pari^ Service, Fish &
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies.
The San Carios Apache Reservation consists of 1 8 million acres In eastern Arizona. The reservation
varies in elevation from 1 ,900 to 8,300 feet above sea level This corresponds with plant communities
varying from lower Sonoran desert to mixed conifer forest.
This is one of the most diverse biological communities of
any contiguous landholding in the United States Of
particular interest is the wildlife ecology of the reservation
About 75 species of mammals and 250 species of birds are
found, including ten big game species, eight small game
species (not including waterfowl), and dozens of neo-
tropical bird species. Large portions of the reservation are
de facto wilderness areas, including the regionally famous
"Mineral Stnp" (that part of the reservation south of the Gila River)
endangered, and candidate species is summarized as follows;
Reference Map
Arizona
a
San Cailos
Apache Re«.
The status of threatened.
Species
T& E status
use of reservation
current management
bald eagle
listed
several nests, probably over
100 in wintering population
some nest protection only
peregnne falcon
listed
several nesting sites
none
spotted owl,
Mexican subspecies
candidate
approximately 12 known pairs,
approximately 35 identified
birds
monitored by tribal Forestry
Department due to lack of
wildlife management funding
northern goshawk
candidate
presence, nests documented
none
desert tortoise,
Mohave supspecies
candidate
documented from several
areas
none
Gila topminnow
listed
two of last ten known
populations
species maintained by San
Carios Fishenes Office
184
In addition to the diversity of wildlife populations, the reservation is famous for quality of many species
(as measured by parameters such as twdy or antler size). Examples include:
• the largest antlers ever produced by the species Cervus elaphus (elk, red deer, etc.)
• two of the top ten bears on record
• the pending worid record mountain lion
• record book pronghom antelope, bighorn sheep, and Coues whitetail deer
As prescribed by San Carlos Apache Tribal Ordinance 76-1 , the affairs of the Tribe pertaining to outdoor
recreation and wildlife are administered by the San Carlos Recreation & Wildlife Commission, a five-
tribal member body that provides policy decisions for the Recreation & Wildlife Department. Such
commissions have t»een recognized as a key to success in tribal wildlife management.
As the director of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, and as the Tribe's first wildlife biologist from
1988 to eariy 1992, I testify that the federal funding level for wildlife management on the reservation is
far short of any normal standards. This is distressing, when the reservation ranks far higher than nomial
standards in its wildlife management needs and potential.
The goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department is to preserve, protect, and enhance wildlife
populations on the reservation, for the benefit of the Tribe and for the tienefit of the ecosystem itself.
Currently the Department consists of a l^w Enforcement Division and a Wildlife Management Program.
The Law Enforcement Division is comprised of nine rangers, one dispatcher, and a security guard. The
Wildlife Management Program consists of one wildlife biologist and one wildlife technician. Supporting
staff for the entire Department includes a maintenance man and three secretaries. The current budget of
the Department is about $696,000. $120,000 of this is federally funded.
Please consider that: 1) Larger acreages (after the startup cost curve is overcome) require larger per-
acre expenditures due to motor vehicle operation/repair costs and time required by field personnel to
access the resource, and, 2) Less developed acreages require larger per-acre expenditures due to
difficulty of access, and, 3) Acreages with greater biodiversity require larger per-acre expenditures
due to the variety of species and issues to handle.
The San Carios Apache Reservation is the fourth largest reservation in the United States and is one of
the least-developed of all reservations (with only two significant communities on the entire 1 .8 million
acres). And, I must re-iterate, the San Carios Apache Reservation has pertiaps the most biodiversity of
any contiguous landholding in the states. This indicates that the San Carios Apache Tribe should be
funded at a higher per/acre level than most federal acreages, not at a lesser level.
To accomplish the goal of the Department, a budget of $1 ,775,000 is required, of which $1 ,200,000 is
requested of Congress. The following pages provide the justification for this budget.
185
Information Branch
Information Branch
(No Branch Supervisor)
Public Relations Unit
Education Unit
Information Officer
Secretary (3)
Education Coordinator
Intern (4)
Information Officer - Answers public inquiries pertaining to hunting, fishing, and other outdoor
pursuits on the reservation. Prepares promotional and educafional publications (for free and for
revenue). Processes public comment data. Writes nev« articles and other press releases.
Arranges promotional events. Documents how promotional activities result in increased
revenue.
Secretary - Answers basic inquiries pertaining to outdoor pursuits on the reservation. Sells
permits and other items. Maintains files pertaining to permit sales and Department personnel.
Sends information to those that request it.
Education Coordinator - Organizes and gives presentations for tribal elementary and high
schools. Assists schools in the incorporation of Project Wild curriculum. Provides tours and
presentations to visiting groups. Prepares educational handouts for public distribution. Serves
as information officer in absence of information officer. Supervises and assists Interns in
successfully completing their college curricula.
Intern - Attends college for two semesters per year, worics for Department other four months per
year. Majors in wildlife science, administration of justice (with wildlife minor), or similar field.
Prepares for professional position with Department or other tribal department or program.
Performs wildlife technician or related duties vA]\\e working for Department as intern.
186
Wildlife Management Branch
Branch Supervisor
Habitat
Unit
Forest Habitat
Specialist
Biodiversity Animal
Specialist Damage
Control Agent
Wildlife Technician
Range Habitat
Specialist
Wildlife Technician (2)
Wildlife Technician
Senior Biologist - Coordinates activities of Wildlife Management Branch, assists other biologists on an as-needed basis,
prevents duplicity of dirties amongst subordinate biologists, conducts Geographic Information System activities, coordinates
cooperatrve projects wrth state and federal agencies
Population Biologist - Monitors population parameters of elk, mule deer, Coues deer, pronghorn. Rocky Mountain bighorn,
desert bighorn, javelina, turkey, bear, lion, and small game species Methods include foot, horseback, vehicular, and aerial
surveys Identifies limiting factors for each species Organizes research projects pertaining to game populations Conducts
statistical analyses on population trends and potential
Harvest Biologist - Monitors harvests of elk, mule deer, Coues deer, pronghorn. Rocky Mountain bighorn, desert bighorn,
javelina, turkey, bear. lion, and small game species Analyzes biological samples obtained from harvests Provides data to
population biologist and financial planner Formulates harvest strategies in consultation wrth population biologist and provides
harvest recommendations to director.
Wildlife Technician (Population Unrt) - Assists population biologist and harvest biologist in conducting vinldlife and hunter
surveys. Enters data into computer files
Forest Habrtat Specialist - Prepares and implements habrtat improvement projects in forested and wrooded areas. Conducts
inventory on important forest habrtat features such as turkey roosts, elk security corridors, elk calving areas, nesting srtes for
many species, etc Plans controlled bums in forested areas to enhance forage for big game species. Organizes research
pertaining to wildlife in forests and woodlands. Provides data to forest wildlife planner
Forest Habrtat Technician - Assists forest habrtat specialist in habrtat inventones. Conducts habrtat improvements
Supervises labor crews
Range Habrtat Specialist - Prepares and implements habrtat improvement projects in rangelands Conducts inventory on
important range habrtat features such as water holes, bighorn lambing areas, etc. Plans controlled range fires to enhance
forage for big game species Organizes research pertaining to wildlife in rangelands Provides data to range wildlife planner
Range Habitat Technician ■
Supervises labor crews
Assists range habrtat specialist in habitat inventones. Conducts habrtat improvements.
Biodiversity Specialist - Monrtors populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensrtive species. Assists forest
wildlife planner in developing guidelines for timber sale administration Provides biological assessments for other tnbal
departments dealing with NEPA or Endangered Species Act requirements
Animal Damage Control Agent - Controls populations of animals that are limrting populations of big game and other valuable
species.
187
To accomplish the goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, the future stmcture of
the Department should be as follows. The budget required to implement this structure
is $1 ,775,000 in 1993 dollars. Proceeding pages give breakdowns of each branch
within the Department.
Tribal Executive Director
Tribal Council
Recreation & Wildlife Commission
Director's Office
Law Enforcement
Branch
Internal Planning
Branch
Information
Branch
Wildlife Management
Branch
The Law Enforcement Branch is responsible for enforcing Tribal Ordinance 76-1 and annual
Comnnission Orders, in addition, it assists other enforcement agencies in the enforcement of other tribal
and federal conservation laws, and assists the Wildlife Management Branch in data collection. The
annual budget required to administer this Branch is $770,000. This budget includes the director's salary
and director's office expenditures.
The Internal Planning Branch is the support branch of the Department, providing both current support
and preparatory support for the Department's future. This support can be physical, financial, or
administrative. This is the Branch most involved, along with the Director, in program development. This
Branch also coordinates Department efforts with the San Carios Planning Department. The annual
budget required to administer this Branch is $295,000.
The Information Branch is responsible for providing the public with information pertaining to rules,
regulations, and orders of the Recreation & Wildlife Commission, and for providing educational services
to the reservation school systems. The Branch also consists of tribal memtier trainees that will learn the
duties of all administrative and professional positions in the Department. The annual budget required to
administer this Branch is $205,000.
The Wildlife Management Brangh is responsible for monitoring wildlife populations, monitoring the
harvests of hunters, providing recommendations for hunting regulations, monitoring and improving
wildlife habitat, and controlling problem animals. The annual budget required to administer this Branch is
$505,000.
188
Law Enforcement Branch
Branch Supervisor
Patrol Unit A
Investigation Unit
Field Supervisor
Game Ranger (6)
Support Unit
Patrol Unit B
Investigator (2)
Dispatcher (2)
Security Guard
Field Supervisor
Game Ranger (6)
Chief Ranger - Administers and coordinates law enforcement activities. Manages the Law
Enforcement Branch fleet. Conducts time-keeping of Branch personnel. Prioritizes investigation
and enforcement activities. Coordinates training for rangers. Enforces all laws enforced by
game rangers. Provides recommendations on revisions of tribal law.
Field Supervisor - Supervises game rangers. Coordinates patrol efforts. Schedules game
rangers' shifts. Assists chief ranger in coordinating training. Enforces all lavra enforced by game
rangers.
Game Ranger - Enforces Code 76-1 and other tribal and federal laws. Serves processes and
notices. Executes warrants and subpoenas issued for violations of the provisions of Code 76-1
Recreation & Wildlife Commission Orders. Conducts searches without a warrant when there is
probable cause to Ijelieve that tribal property is possessed in violation of the law. Seizes wildlife,
evidence, and devices possessed in violation of the law. Collects data of use to the Wildlife
Management Branch.
Investigator - Conducts investigations pertaining to Code 76-1 and other tribal laws. Assists
game rangers in surveillance activities. Enforces tribal laws in absence of game rangers. Trains
game rangers in investigation techniques. Coordinates undercover operations.
Dispatcher - Conducts safety checks of all Branch personnel. Provides secretarial assistance to
chief ranger. Answers phone calls. Manages law enforcement filing system.
Security Guard - Keeps buildings and grounds secured during nighttime hours.
157
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 6
Centennial Accord and Environmental Memorandum of Understanding
The Centennial Accord, a historic document of great magnitude negotiated during
the state's centennial year of 1989, provides for a tribal/state government-to-
government relationship. Such a relationship, a first of its kind in the country, lays
out the basic elements of sovereignty and decision making between the parties.
This document is notable in the context of co-management because it
institutionalizes, to a great extent, the relationship between sovereigns. Nowhere is
such a relationship more critical than in the area of natural resource management
and environmental protection.
A State-Tribal Environmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also
negotiated between the tribes and the state of Washington. This document
identifies tribal and state environmental goals, and suggests a process to resolve
environmental issues on a government to government basis. A copy of the
Centennial Accord and the Environmental MOU are made available with this
testimony.
Each watershed is unique and requires individual as w^elj as regional focus
Within given watersheds or basins, however, the specific status of habitat and fish
stocks will vary, due to differing terrain, water use and other environmental factors,
as well as harvest and other mortality levels. These undeniable facts forced the
conclusion that natural resource management must be tailored to suit local
situations, as well as regional and global realities. In some areas, fish runs are
strong and are comprised in large measure of wild stock. In others, wild stocks or
their habitat have been decimated, and habitat and enhancement efforts are
needed.
There have been those who have tried to point the finger at one industry or another,
or one cause or another, for declines in some fish runs. In some watersheds the
major causes are obvious, such as the Elwha River where dams have totally
blocked fish passage into headwaters that originate in the Olympic National Park.
But, for the most part, a multitude of causes contribute to fish management
problems, and thus the concept of comprehensive management is appropriate. It is
worth mentioning, incidently, that, given available habitat, most fish runs in the
Puget Sound and coastal regions are in relatively good condition, and that many of
these rivers support healthy percentages of wild fish. We credit the comprehensive,
cooperative management approach driven by the U.S. v. Washington decision for
this condition.
68-141 - 93 - 6
158
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 7
Clearly, however, with a host of problems coming from many directions (salmon
have to swim through every conceivable ownership in their migration), cooperative
management must be followed. And, it is the way we have gone for the past eight
years.
Timber-Fish-Wildlife Process
In addition to the U.S. -Canada Treaty mentioned earlier, the Timber-Fish-Wildlife
(TFW) Process is one of the most well known co-management-related efforts, which
brought together previously warring factions of the state, timber industry, tribes, and
environmental organizations. The process changed forest practice rules governing
state and private timber harvest and management. It established a forum for all
parties, including the tribes, to meet and work out differences. It also created a
scientific committee charged with arriving at the "scientific truth," and the
commitment to adapt forest management practices to the truth. Much has been said
about this process over the past several years, but the principal philosophy of TFW
demonstrates a truth we must all learn to accept... that people working together
accomplish worthwhile things, while people fighting one another create waste and
further hostility.
Watershed Planning
Cooperation in fisheries management has also been evident through regional
watershed planning. An example is the Watershed Planning Process, which has
called for the production of Comprehensive Resource Management Plans for every
basin in the U.S. v. Washington case area. Joint management plans for each
watershed are now in various stages of development. Harvest management,
production and habitat restoration and protection measures are critical elements in
each of these plans. Through the exchange of information and technology, as well
as eggs and broodstock, the state and the tribes have made great progress in
cooperative enhancement over the years.
Long Live the Kings and Nisqually Task Force
Some efforts, such as Long Live The Kings (which is having a positive impact in the
Gray's Harbor region), and the Nisqually Task Force (which has helped keep the
Nisqually River one of the most habitable rivers in the region) have, in fact, focussed
on individual watersheds. These efforts, and others like them, are initiatives by the
tribes and interested parties to solve problems and find solutions on the ground, in
individual watersheds.
Chelan Water Resources Planning Process
It was clear from the beginning of cooperative management that water would
eventually be a key link in the process. The health of fish, wildlife, vegetation and
159
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 8
people is utterly dependent on the availability of ample, clean water. Yet, even in the
Pacific Northwest, there are water shortage and quality problems that have
continually worsened over the years.
The planning and allocation of water resources in all western states over the past
century has consisted primarily of the granting of permits in response from
individuals and groups wishing to exploit this precious resource. But the realization
that water is a finite resource and that competitive demands for it easily exceed its
availability have increased the complexity of water management decisions.
In 1990, at the urging of the tribes, a series of tribal-state-user water resource
planning retreats was held. Top ranking officials of state, tribal and local government
interacted with representatives of business, agriculture, environmental organizations,
recreation, hydropower, commercial fishing and other water-related interests to
develop a cooperative water resource planning process.
The result was a process now known as the Chelan Process. The basic goals of the
"agreement" are to 1) manage water by hydrologic unit, 2) meet water needs first
with resources within each respective unit, 3) work toward the tribes' general long
term policy objective of achieving an overall net gain of the productive capacity of
fish and wildlife habitats, and 4) accommodate growrth in a manner that protects the
unique environment of the state. The process was not designed to determine or
resolve legal disputes. Nor was it intended to be the only option for water
management in the state. But the process does provide an historic opportunity to
promote ongoing cooperation in water management planning, and thus minimize
conflict.
Over the past two years, the Water Forum, a committee of affected parties,
including tribes, has met to resolve a comprehensive workplan. If successful, the
plan will advocate a statewide policy on instream flows, hydraulic continuity,
groundwater planning, and other critical water considerations. Also during this time,
pilot cooperative planning projects have been conducted on the Dungeness
watershed in western Washington and on the Methow watershed in eastern
Washington, to test the regional approach.
Puget Sound Water Quality Program
The tribes have been major participants in water quality, as well as water quantity-
oriented programs. The primary water quality-related programs involving tribes in
the state have been the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and a wide
range of water quality programs supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
160
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 9
The Washington State Legislature created PSWQA in 1985, and charged it with
developing a comprehensive plan for water quality protection in Puget Sound, to be
implemented by state and local governments. The tribal seat, filled by NWIFC
Commissioner Terry Williams, was established by the state in recognition of the
important role of the tribes. The tribes have, as a result, been involved in every facet
of Puget Sound water quality management efforts, ranging from the nomination of
watersheds for inclusion in an early action program to address nonpoint source
pollution problems to conducting shellfish programs to protect and enhance that
resource.
Model Water Quality Program Initiative
The western Washington tribes have also linked up with state and local
governments in efforts to manage off-reservation water quality problems. Financial
support for tribal participation in this program has been made available to the tribes
from several sources, including the Department of Ecology's Centennial Clean
Water Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency. During the early years,
the tribal focus has been directed at restoring and maintaining riparian and marine
habitats that support finfish, shellfish and cultural resources. In addition, as
sovereigns, the tribes are involved in planning efforts that affect their jurisdiction. As
a result, each tribe also conducts on-reservation nonpoint source pollution and other
water quality programs.
Comprehensive water quality programs are also being conducted by the tribes in
conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, the
program will address specific water quality problems, propose changes in policy,
regulations and laws, and seek control of nonpoint and point pollution. Some of the
problems of particular concern cited by the tribes include sedimentation and water
temperature increases due to poorly regulated logging; bacterial and chemical
pollution from agriculture, as well as urban runoff and sewage; and increased
pollution of all sorts caused by voids in regulations or by non-enforcement of
existing regulations and laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Our experiences in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate a high level of achievement
and capability. Our management efforts stem from adherence to certain underlying
principles and philosophies. The success of our approach has often been affected
both positively and negatively by critical limiting factors. As such, we believe that it
is necessary for you understand some of our lessons and findings.
161
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 10
Tribes are managers of the resource, not simply users
It is important to note that tribes are natural resource managers. Such management
is culturally based, and predates written history. It is also embodied in treaties,
litigation and sometimes in legislation. Tribes are sovereign entities, and have
primary management on-reservation. As such it is important to understand that
tribes must have clear authority to enforce natural resource regulations on all lands
within reservation boundaries.
Shared responsibility with the states and federal governments on off-reservation
resources are critical to fulfill treaty responsibilities. In some cases tribes have been
clearly integrated in off-reservation planning and management efforts. In other
cases, tribes have been excluded, either deliberately or because federal policy did
afford tribal participation at the time of law passage. Support is needed for the
tribes to be able to participate on fishery management councils and inter-state
compacts as appropriate. It is also important that tribal governments have standing
and the ability to fully participate in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off-
reservation resources.
The federal government has obligations to the tribes
The federal government has outstanding obligations and responsibilities for the
protection and proper management of fish and wildlife. This obligation extends
beyond mere protection and management to insuring access and availability of
natural resources to the Indian people.
This obligation also transcends mere paternalism, and must reflect tribal interests
and approaches. It must reflect a government-to-government approach which
respects tribal self determination and self-governance. Tribes may be at different
levels of understanding or interest, and the federal government must be positioned
to meet the needs of the tribes on their terms, and not the terms of the federal
bureaucracy.
Effective tribal management is a function of infrastructure
The ability of the tribes to effectively manage the natural resources we have
depended upon since time immemorial requires that we have the capabilities for the
next century.
As a result of the US v. Washington decision. Congress appropriated funding for
each tribe to develop their individual management programs. In addition, the tribes
supported resources to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission to assist in
implementing legal obligations.
162
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 11
Resultant staff capabilities have been extremely valuable in allowing the tribes to
address critical management issues in a positive, solution oriented way. But if tribes
are to continue this effort, additional commitments to management and support staff
is essential. This is especially important given the increasing needs for
environmental protection.
Tribal infrastructure depends on adequate and stable funding
Tribal natural resource management programs are second to none in their
effectiveness and efficiency. But even the best programs faces limiting factors. One
such limit is adequate and stable financial support.
Tribal natural resource management programs have delivered many services to
Indian people over the past several years. The programs have built a strong
foundation for future community and economic growth. But without continued
financial support, the programs will not continue to deliver the level of services
needed to manage natural resources.
The sources of funding for tribal natural resource management programs have
included congressional appropriations through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Administration for Native Americans, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. In addition, other tribal revenues come from state programs and
tribally-imposed fish taxes and other tribally generated funds.
At the present time, the tribes do not have clear and specific access to Dingel-
Johnson, Pittman-Robertson, Wallop-Breaux funds, forest legacy programs or Land
and Water Conservation funds. Such access should be secured directly to the
tribes. It should not have to come through the affected states, which may have
different views of priorities and needs, and are often times adversarial to tribal
interests.
Without tribal involvement, overall natural resource management efforts will suffer,
harming all interests in the state, region, and country. Tribal shellfish management
programs, for example, are seen as a key to resolving critical issues surrounding
beach certification procedures. In addition, tribal enhancement planning efforts offer
an increase in finfish and shellfish availability for both tribal and other users. Tribes
have also extensively participated in a number of forums designed to protect treaty
harvest and habitat protection rights. These efforts, which benefit Indian and non-
Indian alike, will suffer without tribal infrastructure. The need for tribal programs
clearly exceeds existing funding levels.
163
Testimony of the NWIFC February 18, 1993
on Fish & Wildlife Management Page 12
It must be recognized that funding not only needs to be adequate in terms of
amount, but also needs to be stable in its delivery to the tribes. One major problem
tribes have faced over the past ten years has been fluctuations in funding due to
misguided bureaucratic initiatives, lack of cost-of-living adjustments, inflation factors,
and sequestration problems.
Shortages caused by these problems create difficulties securing and retaining key
staff. Tribes have seen a number of professional staff members leave their employ
to take positions with collateral agencies offering more stability and pay.
Training and professional development is critical
It is important for tribes to receive help with training and professional career
development. Such assistance is critical if the tribes are ever to be successful in
enticing Indian students into the field of natural resource management and
environmental protection.
In addition, tribal staff members need to keep current in their fields just like any
other professional. Opportunities for further education and training and placement
between federal agencies and tribes would be very useful to tribal programs.
CONCLUSION
Cooperation is the banner we wish to wave as we close out this millennium. Let us
all pull together, so we can accomplish what none of us can accomplish alone. Let
us all have the courage to take the stands we must take to secure a habitable world
for our children of tomorrow, as well as our workers of today. Let us stand up to
hard problems and make good decisions. Let us stand behind what we know is
right, and fortify these positions with the words and actions of truth and dignity.
We believe these objectives will be aided by legislation you are now considering, if
you focus on a few core concepts we have spoken to, and make them cornerstones
for an Indian fish and wildlife management act
The Indian tribes are waking up in this country, we are leaving the "Dark Ages"
behind, and through cooperative efforts, we will be able to help save the natural
heritage of this land for the benefit of future generations.
Thank you.
164
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
Without objection, gentlemen, your statements will be ftiUy made
part of the record. So I just wanted to note that.
Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Yes, thank you very much.
I'll be brief, and I won't even try to follow Billy with my com-
ments.
I have the dubious distinction of often times having to follow
Billy, and it's always very flat compared to his presentation.
So what we would like to do is provide some information for the
record.
We have a document which was signed by the tribes in Washing-
ton State with the State of Washington called the Centennial Ac-
cord. And it was a govemment-to-govemment relationship that was
documented in 1989 and we'll make that part of the record.
It I guess shows the type of relationship that the tribes in Wash-
ington State have worked out with the State of Washington to
work on issues in a cooperative and forthright manner, respecting
each others sovereignty.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, the documents will be
made part of the record.
[Editor's note. — Documents submitted by Mr. Anderson may be
found in the hearing files.]
Mr. Anderson. I have a couple of other excerpts fi*om reports.
One in particular is the Report of the United States of America to
the United Nations' Conference on Environment and Development,
in which the Northwest Tribal efforts were highlighted as a good
example of how tribes and the state and federal government can
work together in cooperative natural resources management.
There's a memorandum of understanding that the tribes have ne-
gotiated with the State of Washington, it talks about how to work
out environmental issues without necessarily litigating issues. It
does reserve the opportunity to litigate, and that is available here.
And finally, I have a series of reports, one on timber, fish, wild-
life, one on the tribal water quality program, and one on our fish-
ery management program and our annual report that go into great
detail about programs that Billy has talked about, and show how
we've been able to package certain things.
And then, finally, we have a video tape here with four different
videos on it, one about the Fish Commission and our member
tribes, one on shell fish, negotiations and litigation that's very im-
portant to us right now, one on the timber, fish, wildlife initiative,
which was a very ground-breaking pioneering effort, and finally a
video that won an Emmy called "Moon's Prayer," £ind that talks
about the tribal perspectives on the environment. And it was very
well received, seen by hundreds of thousands of people in the Pa-
cific Northwest.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
[Editor's note. — The videotape may be found in the hearing
files.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to ask you, Mr. Anderson, do you
have just one tape?
Mr. Anderson. I have one tape, but I'd be very glad to make
other tapes available.
\
165
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me offer this as a suggestion for the
tribal members of the organization.
It would be very nice to have copies of the tapes be made to the
members of the subcommittee specifically, and maybe with just a
courtesy letter inviting the members on their own privacy and op-
portunity they might have, so they might see the videos that you
have indicated earlier.
I think it'll be a real good orientation for the members of the sub-
committee if they are given copies of the videos.
Mr. Anderson. We will do that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Harp?
STATEMENT OF JIM HARP
Mr. Harp. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
I'm pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views
of the Quinault Indigin Nation regarding concerns pertaining to the
management of fish, wildlife, and plants.
I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative
of the Quinault Indian Nation up in the State of Washington, on
the coast of Washington.
We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal
views on how the United States could improve the administration
of its trust responsibilities towards Indian tribes.
We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Af-
fairs has also initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope
for legislative action concerning management of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources of concern to Indian tribes, and urge that the
House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to ultimately
develop legislation that can be enacted into law.
I would like to premise our statement with a few remarks that
may help provide perspective and understanding of our views.
Fish, wildlife, and plants have been central to our culture, econ-
omy and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the United
States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to hunt,
fish, and gather.
Since then, time and again, Indian people have been jailed,
abused, and forced to the courts when attempting to exercise trea-
ty-protected rights. Only aft;er lengthy and costly litigation affirm-
ing our rights, has the United States been willing to provide finan-
cial resources for management of the resources which comprise our
heritage.
In effect, the United States has historically taken the posture
that our treaties have no meaning unless and until the courts say
they do.
We find such attitudes abominable. They have led to the deple-
tion of important resources, erosion of sovereignty, reduction in
management effectiveness, and diminishment of the legacy that we
leave our children.
The government to government relationship between Indian
tribes and the United States which flows fi-om the Constitution,
treaties, and courses of dealings, must be strengthened and re-
spected.
166
This relationship has been defined by numerous pieces of legisla-
tion and executive orders, administered by the Executive Branch,
and interpreted by the courts.
The United States has obligations and responsibilities for protec-
tion, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants,
soil, and water, so as to ensure access, sustained availability and
suitability for use by Indian tribes and Alaska native peoples.
The United States should serve as an advocate for the preserva-
tion and exercise of these treaty rights, not sit idly by, a silent wit-
ness to their erosion.
We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few
fundamental cornerstones to estabhsh the foundation for future ini-
tiatives in fish and wildlife management.
The foremost issue is to affirm the commitment of the United
States to support, strengthen, and enhance tribal management ca-
pabilities. This commitment should be reflected in two fundamental
areas.
First, tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management
direction on-reservation should be fully supported. Our reservation
was established as a permanent homeland for the people of the
Quinault Nation.
The policy of allotment has led to the fractionation and checker
boarding of land on many reservations across the country.
Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enor-
mous problems when attempting to implement responsible resource
management.
Contending with trespass violations and enforcement of fish and
game regulations has become an administrative nightmare, fraught
with jurisdictional impediments to effective resource management.
These problems are especially severe for fish and wildlife re-
sources which of course recognize no political or ownership bound-
aries.
We believe that the Congress and the Administration should rec-
ognize the primacy of tribal rights to m£inage fish and wildlife re-
sources on-reservation. Support should be provided for development
of effective enforcement of tribal fish and wildlife codes and regula-
tions to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation bound-
aries.
In addition, adequate funding and professional development
training programs are needed to improve tribal management skills
and capacities.
Second, the standing of tribal governments to participate in deci-
sions involving off-reservation resource management issues, at
least on a par with the states, should be supported.
An affected tribal government should, at its own option, be enti-
tled to take part in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off-res-
ervation resources of concern.
For example, standing for tribes to fully participate in specific
regulatory activities, such as habitat protection, in stream flows,
water quality, and FERC licensing, should be recognized.
Further, current programs within the federal government pro-
vide for agreements with states for management direction of lands
and resources, some of which Indian tribes have vital interests.
This occurs without tribal consultation and participation.
167
Prescriptive measures are needed to prevent actions and agree-
ments without tribal participation that involve either federal or on-
reservation lands.
This would prevent agreements between states and federal agen-
cies without participation and agreement of the affected tribes.
Another example is, presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional
fishery management councils have direct responsibility for develop-
ing ocean fishery management plans affecting the numerous salm-
on and other marine resources of Indian tribes.
While these councils provide for representation by states, there
is no specific provision for representation by Indian tribal govern-
ments,
I am privileged to serve as an at-large voting member of the Pa-
cific Fishery Management Council for the State of Washington.
However, specific representation for tribal governments is clearly
warranted and should be mandated by law.
In closing, the Quinault Nation stands ready to work with the
Committee in developing reasoned and responsible approaches to-
ward improving the management of our natural resource heritage.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Harp follows:]
168
Quinault Indian Nation
POST OFFICE BOX 189 t TAHOLAH. WASHINGTON 98587 D TELEPHONE (206) 276-8211
TESTIMONY OF JIM HARP ON BEHALF OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
REGARDING LEGISLATION CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE
RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO INDIAN COMMUNITIES
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 18. 1993
I am pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views of the
Quinault Indian Nation regarding concerns pertaining to management of fish, wildlife,
and plants. I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative of the
Quinault Nation.
We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal views on how
the United States could improve the administration of its trust responsibilities toward
Indian tribes. We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs has
also initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope for legislative action
concerning management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of concern to Indian
tribes and urge that the House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to
ultimately develop legislation that can be enacted into law.
I would like to premise our statement with a few remarks that may help provide
perspective and understanding of our views. Fish, wildlife, and plants have been
central to our culture, economy, and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the
United States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to hunt, fish, and
gather. Since then, time and again, Indian people been jailed, abused, and forced to
the courts when attempting to exercise treaty-protected rights. Only after lengthy and
costly litigation affirming our rights, has the United States been willing to provide
financial resources for management of the resources which comprise our heritage. In
effect, the United States has historically taken the posture that our Treaties have no
meaning unless and until the courts say they do. We find such attitudes abominable.
They have led to the depletion of important resources, erosion of sovereignty,
reduction in management effectiveness, and diminishment of the legacy that we leave
our children.
169
Testimony of Jim Harp, QIN Page 2
Indian Fish & Wildlife Enhancement February 18, 1993
The government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the
United States which flows from the Constitution, treaties, and course of dealings
must be strengthened and respected. This relationship has been defined by numerous
pieces of legislation and executive orders, administered by the Executive Branch, and
interpreted by the courts. The United States has obligations and responsibilities for
protection, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, soil, and
water ~ so as to insure access, sustained availability and suitability for use by Indian
tribes (and Alaska native peoples). The United States should serve as an advocate for
the preservation and exercise of these treaty rights, not sit idly a by silent witness to
their erosion.
We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few fundamental
"cornerstones" to establish the foundation for future initiatives in fish & wildlife
management. The foremost issue is to affirm the commitment of the United States
to support, strengthen, and enhance tribal management capabilities. This commitment
should be reflected in two fundamental areas:
First, tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management direction on-
reservation should be fully supported. Our reservation was established as a
permanent homeland for the people of the Quinault Nation. The policy of allotment
has led to the fractionation and checker boarding of land on many reservations across
the country. Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enormous
problems when attempting to implement responsible resource management.
Contending with trespass violations and enforcement of fish and game regulations has
become an administrative nightmare, fraught with jurisdictional impediments to
effective resource management. These problems are especially severe for fish and
wildlife resources which, of course, recognize no political or ownership boundaries.
We believe that the Congress and the Administration should recognize the
primacy of tribal rights to manage fish and wildlife resources on-reservation. Support
should be provided for development and effective enforcement of tribal fish and
wildlife codes and regulations to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation
boundaries. In addition, adequate funding and professional development training
programs are needed to improve tribal management skills and capacities.
Second, the standing of tribal governments to participate in decisions involving
off-reservation resource management issues, at least on a par with states, should be
supported. An affected tribal government should, at its own option, be entitled to
take part in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off -reservation resources of concern.
For example, standing for tribes to fully participate in specific regulatory activities,
such as habitat protection, in stream flows, water quality, and FERC licensing should
be recognized. Further, current programs within the Federal government provide for
170
Testimony of Jim Harp, QIN Page 3
Indian Fish & Wildlife Enhancement February 18, 1993
agreements with states for management direction of lands and resources, some of
which Indian tribes have vital Interests. This occurs without tribal consultation and
participation. Prescriptive measures are needed to prevent actions and agreements
without tribal participation that involve either federal or on-reservation lands. This
would prevent agreements between states and federal agencies without participation
and agreement of affected tribes. Presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional fishery
management councils have direct responsibility for developing ocean fishery
management plans affecting the numerous salmon and other marine resources of
Indian tribes. While these councils provide for representation by states, there is no
specific provision for representation by Indian tribal governments. I am privileged to
sit as an at-large member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the State of
Washington, however, specific representation for tribal governments is clearly
warranted and should be mandated by law.
The Quinault Nation stands ready to work with the Committee in developing
reasoned and responsible approaches toward improving the management of our
natural resource heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
topic.
171
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Harp.
A couple of observations, and I will then ask a couple more ques-
tions to the members of the panel.
One of the things that I've noted over the years is that some-
times, perhaps with sincere and good intentions, several tribal or-
ganizations hire consultant firms here in Washington to represent
their interests.
But one of the things that I would certainly like to convey and
to express this interest to the tribes is that whenever you're here
in Washington, please make every effort to see the members them-
selves.
Sometimes I think our tribal members think that only the con-
sultant firms are the only ones that can see the members.
There's nothing sacred about you not having to come and visit us
directly. Because this lobbying game that goes on sometimes, in my
humble opinion, gets lost in the quagmire of seeing that sometimes
the information, or you don't really see the members themselves,
and the message just doesn't come across.
So I would like to encourage and pass the word out to Indian
country, when you are here in Washington, please make every ef-
fort to visit the member delegations of your states, or even the
members of the given subcommittees, whether it be in the Senate
or on the House side.
Visit with them directly. Talk to them.
That's why we're here.
And I would hke to give that alert to all the tribal organizations,
especially for the tribal leaders when they do come to Washington.
Please make it, if you're working through our consultant firms or
whatever organizations that do it, make sure that you require that
they make appointments for you, and have you come visit with us
directly. Tell us what your problems are.
I never see many of our tribal fi-iends who come fi-om the various
states, and I wonder why.
And it seems that the only chance that I get to visit^and Im
sure this is true with other members— is when we have hearings.
Then right after the hearing, everybody disappears.
And I would like to make that note to encourage as many of our
Native American leaders to come and visit with the members di-
rectly. Make appointments with us. Tell us what your problems
are. ...
Now I'm sure that there may be some sense of hesitation about
not being able to speak proper English. .
I'm still learning the EngUsh language. My mom, to her dying
day, could hardly speak English. But English is only a tool. And
if you need to have a translator, then get yourself a translator, and
make it known what your wishes are.
This is one of the problems. Our whole educational system and
the theories and the problems that affect Native Americans is the
same thing that happened to us. i. . t
We don't have a Bureau of Indian Aff'airs, but we have what 1
call an isolated Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we have the same
problems that you are confronted with.
And I don't mean to say this in a derogatory way, meanmg that
those people downtown are evil. But sometimes with the best and
172
sincere efforts, somehow things get lost in the cracks. And some-
times you have to keep ringing that bell, you have to keep
scrinching in and making sure that somebody hears and pays a lit-
tle more attention to the problems affecting Native Americans,
So I would really like to pass that word onto all of our tribal
leaders and friends out in Indian country. Come and visit the mem-
bers. Make appointments with them. There's nothing sacred about
that.
Sometimes you need to not depend too much on our consultant
friends. You come and see us. And if you think you have broken
English, I can speak broken English too, you know.
They call it pidgin English in Hawaii, but I really would like to
offer that sense of encouragement to our friends.
And again I go back to Mr. Poynter's comments that were made
earlier. I couldn't agree with him more. And this is the directing
that the Chairman definitely is going to take, a very active role.
He's going to plan a series of hearings in the coming weeks and
months.
It is our hope that we will prepare a comprehensive legislation
that will affect the needs of Native Americans dealing with wildlife
and services and dealing with their economic needs.
So I'm very encouraged. And this is not taking anything away
from Chairman Miller and what he's had to do on an ad hoc basis
since he took over the chairmanship of this Committee.
But just the fact that Congressmsin Richardson in his initiative
and the concerns that he's had over the years, that we've worked
very closely together, and the fact that we now have an official sub-
committee doing this, is a big, big change, dramatic change in
what's happening here in the Congress.
And I would also suggest to have you write letters directly to the
Chairman, and give him a sense of encouragement. You know,
sometimes we get very depressed down here. And we don't know
from our heads down to our toes if we're doing the right thing our-
selves.
So give us a sense of direction. Let us know what's going on in
Indian country. Sometimes, with good intentions, our friends down-
town as well as even here, we don't know what's going on.
But I think a direct communication, phone calls, or whatever it
is that needs to get the attention not only of the Congress, but as
well as of the Administration, we need to do it.
I expressed my sense of frustration, I recall, last year. For four
years, it's been on the books and by-law, that we're to establish a
National Conference of Indian Education. Well, we did it but it was
on a last minute basis, and was kind of a quick put together thing.
We had the conference, so we have another study, after about a
thousEind other studies and conferences and meetings and commis-
sions and councils, all retreads, in my humble opinion, knowing
that the same problems that we're going to be talking about this
year in and year out.
But I really really hope that we're going to get some results this
time.
I want to commend Mr. Frank for his directness, and certsdnly
you couldn't have said it better.
173
This is the constant theme that I've heard over £ind over again
over the years. Indian tribes want funding directly to go to them
to manage their affairs.
Now here's the other side of the coin to this issue, Mr. Frank.
And there are those of us who said, well, but we have to have some
sense of accountability. This is the taxpayers' money. How are we
going to make sure that that money is spent properly, and that it's
not going to be wasted or mismanaged or there's any sense of cor-
ruption or fraud.
This is the kind of thing that has its Washington mentality going
on. And say, well, we have to have some sense of accountability for
it.
So that's the other side of the coin.
And perhaps maybe we can get better suggestions or rec-
ommendations from Indian country, and perhaps it can be proven
that Indian tribes can do a better job in managing the money that
comes from the American taxpayers' pocket.
So this is the kind of thing that goes on here. And hopefully you
can give us better recommendations on how we can make improve-
ments in this.
I appreciate Chief Wallulatum's statement. You're not here ask-
ing for funds. You're here just to give you better management
skills.
Maybe this is another area that the Department of the Interior
can look at.
You're not here to ask for handouts. You just want something to
make you more self-sufficient. This is another constant theme that
I hear from our tribal friends across the country.
I have asked previously for the opinions of the previous panel
about how they feel about the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as
the Congress.
But I think pretty much we've gotten a sense of how this hearing
is starting. And please bear in mind that this is just the begin-
ning,.
Like I said, I'm very very encouraged that the Chairman is going
to bring our Committee to Indian country, rather than to always
constantly have Indian country coming to Washington. I think it's
high time that Washington needs to come and see for themselves,
the members especially, what's happening out there.
And I also want to express my profound reverence and respect
for High Chief Wallulatum and Mr. Frank. And I think this is a
one, constant cultural theme that I would like to say, you know,
Steve and I are nothing but kids.
And I always remember what Emerson said. That the years
teach much which the days never know. And I always make that
special note, my most profound respect for our elders here this
morning.
And I really, really appreciate your presence. It's given me a
sense of greater responsibility and commitment, and I'm sure Steve
feels the same way.
But we need guidance, we need your wisdom. All the smarts and
education don't mean beans if we don't have the guidance from our
elders. And I just want to let Chief Wallulatum know that and Mr.
Frank.
174
I'm a chief in my own culture, but I'm a small chief. In fact,
when the members of the council of chiefs in my village meet, my
chieftain title is so small that I sit under a coconut tree outside the
chiefs' council meeting.
But nevertheless, it's my most profound respect for the culture,
and this is something that I'm sure that there is a great sensitivity
by the members to do this.
But we do this both for the culture, but we also need to be pro-
gressive in our thinking. And the world has changed, and I couldn't
agree more with Mr. Frank about the Bolt decision. It's made a tre-
mendous impact on this whole issue of the rights of Indian to fish
and wildlife.
It's a controversial one, the problems with the rights of the states
versus the federal government with the tribes. But I think we have
to be constantly at it, or else things get lost on the way.
So I just want to give that sense of my feelings and certainly to
the members of the panel and my respect for your being here this
morning.
Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman. This is part of my little, I've got a
little history for you.
And I've got to say it to you. I can't say it to anybody else on
the panel, but because of where you're from.
But before the turn of the century, and that's a long time ago,
well, there's some warm water comes by off of our coast about 40
or 50 miles off of the mainland.
And it comes around, from Alaska, it comes around and along
the Pacific Coast, and then it goes down in the South American
coast toward your coimtry. And it's documented that you have
some of our logs, and that you made canoes out of them and pad-
dles.
And canoes are part of our culture and spiritual life and the pad-
dles that we have and make, and how we train our children to be
good paddlers, and now even our women are paddlers. And you
guys are certainly canoe people.
But those logs, how they got out into that ocean, was from all
the storms that took place and the high water and the snow runoff
and the different things that takes place up there.
Of course, there was hemlock, there was cedar, there was fir, dif-
ferent other types of spruce and different things that went out into
the ocean.
And sooner or later, they reached your country. And so that con-
nected us a lot of ways, in more ways than one. It connected us
people.
And now today we can talk about how that connection was made.
But we talk about that in our homeland and about your people over
in those islands out there, because we're all one people. And now
we're related to one another in different ways.
We go to school with each other, and our cultures have met. But
at that particular time, it met by our natural resource, and that
was by logs in the way.
And I just wanted to share that story with you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Frank, I appreciate that.
175
I've always said, with humor, to my Native American cousins
here that I don't know what happened to the rest of you, but we
were the brave ones that went out into the ocean and sought out
the mysteries out there.
Mr. Frank. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In the western sea.
You mentioned canoes. It's interesting to note that the cata-
maran, as we know them today, are the fastest vessels in the
world. But if you don't reahze it, that's a prototype of the Polyne-
sian double hull canoe, believe it or not.
I was privileged to sail from Tahiti to Hawaii, which is about a
2700 mile distance, on a prototype Polynesia double hull canoe,
about five years ago. And we sailed by non-instrument; in other
words, strictly on the waves and the stars and the moon, the whole
works.
And I WEinted to say that it was one of the most spiritual experi-
ences that I've ever had in my life. It was just like I was living a
thousand years ago among my ancestors.
And so I know that your fishing methods are exactly the same
as ours, believe it or not.
And there is some discussion about even our cousins, the Maoris
in New Zealand, do the same type of fishing methods the way you
do. And the question is how is it, maybe by coincidence.
I'd like to think that it was more than just coincidence.
But I really appreciate your comment on this issue. And I cer-
tainly want to tha^ you gentlemen and all the members who have
testified earlier.
Please, I encourage you, write letters to the Chairman, let him
know how you feel about these issues. Let's do something soUd this
time around concerning the needs of our Native American commu-
nities on wildlife and fisheries.
And hopefully we will come up with a comprehensive piece of leg-
islation in the coming weeks or months. And it's all going to de-
pend on the kind of input that we get from Indian country.
And this is the kind of thing that I know the Chairman is look-
ing forward to.
Again, I want to sincerely thank all of you for being here this
morning.
I welcome you to come and visit my office. Please do so, because
I'm leaving tomorrow. But, please, before you do come to Washing-
ton, make a sincere effort. Come and visit the members. Let them
know how you feel about these things.
And, again, I want to thank all of you, and I wish you Godspeed
and safe return to your homes.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
subject to call of the Chair.]
APPENDIX
February 18, 1993
Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
TESTDCNY OF FE3«)INAND MARTDffiAU
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ferdinand
Martineau and I am submitting this written statement to you as the
Executive Director of the 1854 Authority. The Authority is an
inter-tribal organization created by three of the signatories of
the Treaty of 1854 between the United States and the Lake Superior
Chippewa. The Authority oversees the exercise of rights that were
reserved in the 5 million acres that was ceded by the treaty in
what is now Northeastern Minnesota. This area includes the western
boundary of Lake Superior, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
in Minnesota, Superior National Forest, and several smaller state
forests and parks. The Bands entered into litigation in 1985 in the
case of Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior, et. al v. State of
Minnesota et. al . in a dispute arising under Article Eleven of the
Treaty of 1854. Article Eleven states that the Chippewa residing
in the territory ceded by the Treaty of 1854 " shall have the right
to hunt and fish therein... ". As litigation proceeded both sides
recognized the long term bitter consequences associated with this
type of litigation in other areas around the country and requested
a continuance to try to negotiate a settlement. The Bands goal in
these negotiations was to reach a settlement that established a
relationship with the State and not to alter any rights under the
Treaty of 1854. The negotiations resulted in the consummation of
an Agreement between the Bands and the State that recognized the
Bands rights in the Ceded Territory and required the development
of an off-reservation conservation code to manage the harvest of
the natural resources. The Bands deemed it necessary to develop an
infrastructure for the administration, biological, enforcement,
financial, legal and public relation. The Authority has been in the
process of trying to develop the infrastructure but because of
budget limitations has had only limited success.
Funding, or rather the lack of it, has hampered the Authority. As
with all new initiative in Indian Country, the Authority has not
had the benefit of any pre-existing source of funds and has had to
go directly to Congress for an appropriation. Since 1988 the
Authority has came to Congress and requested funds to help in the
development of it's infrastructure. Each year has been a success
and a failure for the Authority. The Authority has had success in
being able to secure the funds necessary to maintain the limited
services that it's members have come to expect, but the Authority
has not been able to secure the amount that was requested.
Currently the Authority receives approximately 3300,000 per year.
The current request that will be presented to Congress later this
session is for approximately 32,000,000. The Authority currently
employs 5 conservation officers that have the responsibility of
patrolling the Ceded Territory (5,000,000 acres). The State
currently employs 45 C.O's. to patrol the same area. The
Authority's officers currently work as needed, which means that the
coverage is sporadic and that the officers are not able to maintain
a consistent or continuous schedule. In order to help alleviate
this situation the Authority worked out a cross-deputization
agreement with the State. All the conservation officers in the
Ceded Territory now are empowered to enforce each others code. This
agreement has not worked to the Authority's advantage as it has
(177)
178
given it's officers more to do while in the field. The Authority
currently operates a court system, a registration system and an
administrative system. Each of these are staffed by a very limited
amount of personnel who have to handle more than their own job. The
Authority does not employ any biological, financial, legal or
public relations staff, not because there is no need for them but,
because the money is not available to hire them. As stated earlier
there is 5 million acres of land, rivers and lakes that make up the
Ceded Territory.
Within the Ceded Territory the Authority has to deal with a variety
of governmental agencies. Each having it's own bureaucratic system
of regulations that they must follow. Each agency must be worked
with on an individual basis to bring them up to date with current
laws and how they affect their relationship with the Authority and
the practice of Treaty Rights in the Ceded Territory. Although the
Authority has implemented a conservation code to regulate their
members exercise of rights in the Ceded Territory, they have been
slow in their acceptance that the Authority has jurisdiction over
it ' s member in the harvest of the natural resources in the Ceded
Territoiry. The Authority's presence and public education remain a
high priority for the Bands. The Authority continues to work within
the established framework to deal with the current issues in the
protection of Treaty Rights.
The environmental issues such as mining, timber harvest, disposal
of hazardous material, air and water quality and a variety of other
similar concerns have always been the forefront for the Bands of
the Lake Superior Chippewa. The environment was an integral part
of their lifestyle, culture and religion. All band members
supported their way of life through harvest of the natural
resources around them. Today that tradition continues through the
Authority. The Bands have enacted very strict legislation on their
reservations and are in the development stages for the Ceded
Territoiry to protect this way of life for future generations of
the Bands. Band members are beginning to recognize the efforts of
the Authority and are starting to practice traditional values more
openly.
Prior to the passage of P. L. 93-638 the Indian Self Determination
and Education Act, tribal government played a limited role in the
determination of it's future. The government enacted legislation
designed to bring the Indian into the dominant society and to take
away the traditional form of government. There was legislation that
diminished the land base of the Bands and placed large portion of
the reservations into private ownership, both Indian and non
Indian. Most of this was done with little or no input from the
Bands. Since P. L. 93-638 tribal governments have taken an active
roll in the determination of their future. The Bands in Minnesota
developed their infrastructures to handle the development
reservations, and have begun to participate in the political
process to develop good relationships with all the elected
officials who represent them on a state and national level. They
have became involved with lobbying efforts to effect the outcome
179
of legislation that affects them. Recently the Bands have turned
the focus of their efforts to the Ceded Territory. The Bands
recognized that the need for the natural resources to maintain the
traditional lifestyle has placed a burden on reservation resources
and they must now begin to use the Ceded Territory resources. As
the Bands expand the practice of Treaty Rights outside their
reservations new questions arise about the trust responsibility of
the B. I. A. and the U. S. Government and the Bands.
Clearly the B. I. A. has a trust responsibility on reservation but,
just as clearly, not off the reservation. The system currently in
place has a clear delineation of how the Bands and the B. I. A.
work together with on reservation concerns. The problems surface
when the Bands begin to exercise off reservation rights. There is
a long term litigation process that is costly to the Bands and no
clear role for B. I. A. to play. The Bands have to depend upon
their own financial resources to undertake this battle and, if
successful, the B. I. A. then becomes a fund mechanism for them.
Although this statement is short in words the problems outlined
here could fill several volumes of testimony.
Legislation should be enacted that will allow the Bands access to
the long term funding necessary to develop the infrastructure to
enable them to be co-managers of the natural resources in the Ceded
Territory. The jurisdictional questions should be dealt with by the
agencies in negotiations as they currently are. The environmental
issues will cease to be a concern once the infrastructure has the
staff to deal with them in an informed manner. Tribal participation
is always a concern with the development of legislation and should
be addressed throughout the whole process. The trust responsibility
of the United States and the relationship between tribal government
should be cleared up so all citizens understand it. The problems
that exist in Indian Country are old. They are a part of our past,
our present and unless things change our future. Once the problems
of funding tribal programs is stable, the jurisdiction that the
tribes retained in the Ceded Territory is clear, the enactment of
tribal legislation for the protection of the environment of the
Ceded Territory's natural resources is recognized, there is tribal
participation in legislation and the trust responsibility of the
United States between Indian people is clear accepted, then, the
Bands will be recognized as the true keepers of the environment
that they are.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement before your
committee in behalf of the Lake Superior Chippewa Bands of Bois
Forte and Grand Portage.
Megwich .
180
THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
San Carlos Avenue
P,0^ Box 0
San Carlos, Arizona 85550
(602) 475-2361
Fax (602) 475-2567
HamsonTalgo.Sr. .^«B^^ Raymond Stanley
Tribal Chairman .^^^StjJ!^. Tnbal V.ce Chairman
STATEMENT OF HARRISON TALGO SR, CHAIRMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE
TRIBE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS,
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, REGARDING FISH AND WILDLIFE
ACTIVITIES
FEBRUARY 18, 1993
Mr. Chairman, my name is Harrison Talgo, Sr. I am Chairman of the
San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona. I appreciate this opportunity
to comment on problems encountered by the San Carlos Apache Tribe
in its efforts to manage its wildlife populations for protection
of endangered or threatened species and for subsistence hunting
by members of the Tribe and sports hunting by visitors to our
Reservation. This hearing will focus attention on one of the most
neglected subjects of Federal trust management of Indian lands
and their resources.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe recommends that legislation be
enacted to (1) establish realistic funding levels for wildlife
management activities; (2) improve coordination of wildlife
management of nearby Federal and state lands with tribal
management plans; and (3) provide scholarships and training to
enable tribes to employ their own members in wildlife management
activities. I will direct ray remarks today to the need for
equitable levels of funding.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for FY 1993 provides S28
million for Wildlife and Parks. Of this amount approximately two-
thirds is dedicated for use off-reservation in connection with
treaty fishing-rights obligations, chiefly in the Northwest and
Great Lakes regions. Of the remaining S9.5 million, $2.5 million
is for tribal hatchery O&M, leaving ST.O million for Tribal
Management/ Development Programs (TMDP I . TMDP funds are
available, under 638 contracts, to enable tribes to: develop
codes, ordinances, and regulations for conserving fish and
wildlife resources on millions of acres of trust land; develop
the mul t idisc ipl inary competence and professional expertise of
tribes and intertribal fish and wildlife organizations; create
181
job- and income-producing programs; and manage public use and
tourism. Of the entire $28 million, less than 2% is available for
management of big-game and bird populations on approximately 51
million acres of trust land. This works out to less than 2 cents
per acre. The way the BIA structures its budget obscures the fact
that very little of its wildlife and parks fund go to on-
reservation wildlife management. We suggest that the Subcommittee
consult with the BIA to arrive at a budget structure that more
clearly displays how its funds are deployed to meet its several
important on-reservation missions and to the extent feasible
distinguish funding for fish, on the one hand, and all other
species, on the other.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe receives $65,000 of TMDP funds for
wildlife management on its 1.8 million-acre reservation (the
fourth largest in the nation) or about 3 1/2 cents per acre. The
Tribe also has allocated approximately $55,000 of other BIA funds
to wildlife management at the cost of reduced funding for
programs under the BIA's tribal priority system for allocation of
appropriated funds. As a measure of the Tribe's concern for its
wildlife resources, it contributes about $696,000 of its Tribal
funds, although it is one of the most impoverished tribes in the
nation. With these funds, the Tribe tries to manage 75 species of
mammals and 250 species of birds. Among the bird population are
the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Me.xican spotted owl and
northern goshawk. The Mohave desert tortoise is also documented.
These species are designated as endangered or threatened species
or are candidates for designation. The Tribe's wildlife funding
needs and management structure are described in the statement of
Mr. Brian Czech, Director of the San Carlos Apache Recreation and
Wildlife Department, which is appended to my statement.
It is our understanding that other land management agencies of
the Federal government with comparable land and wildlife
resources spend as much as 10 times more money on wildlife
management per acre than the BIA makes available for management
on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. We suggest that the
Subcommittee ask the Department of the Interior and Forest
Service to provide figures on comparative levels of funding.
It has been suggested that Indian tribes should be made eligible
to receive direct Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife
Restoration ( Dingell- Johnson , Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux
programs) and Land and Water Conservation funds. Subject to
certain conditions, we support this suggestion. We wish to
stress, however, that tribes should be eligible for direct
funding from these sources just as the United States territories,
the District of Columbia, and the states are. At present, tribes
must apply to the states for a share of these funds. This
requirement violates the spirit of the government-to-government
182
relationship between the United States and the tribes and invites
state interference in the internal affairs of the tribes.
We further highlight our concern that the use of these funds
requires that a tribe allow public hunting on its reservation.
Much of our Reservation is open to off-reservation hunters and
anglers, but not all of it. At least one tribe we know of has
closed its entire reservation to public hunting. The Federal
obligation to tribes respecting the protection and management of
their trust resources must not be put at the sufferance of state
governments and of f -reservation hunters and fishers.
We believe the primary source of Federal funds for tribal
wildlife management should be the same source that provides funds
for other Federal land management agencies--appropriated funds
from the Treasury.
In conclusion, the San Carlos Apache Tribe requests that
legislation be enacted to establish funding standards which are
not less than those of other Federal land management agencies
with comparable land and wildlife resources and that such funds
be available to a tribe without regard to whether or not the
reservation is open, closed, or partly closed to public use or
the hunting of, or fishing for, certain species is prohibited.
Your interest in this vitally important issue and your long-
standing commitment to a better day for Indian tribes are deeply
appreciated .
I
1
183
THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
RECREATION & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
PO Box 97
San Carlos. Anzona 85550
(602) 475-2653
(602) 475-2343
BRIAN CZECH
Director
COMMISSIONERS
Paul Nosie. Jr
Dennis Nelson
GibGon Boni
STATEMENT OF BRIAN CZECH (DIRECTOR, SAN CARLOS RECREATION &
WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE) TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
February 16, 1994
The San Carlos Apache Tribe, Recreation & Wildlife Department, very much appreciates the opportunity
to present this testimony to the Suticommittee on Native American Affairs.
The most important point in this testimony is that the Tribe needs federal wildlife funding that is
consistent with funding of landholdings administered by the US. Forest Service. ParV Service. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies.
The San Carios Apache Reservation consists of 1.8 million acres in eastern Arizona. The reservation
varies in elevation from 1 .900 to 8.300 feet above sea level This con-esponds with plant communities
varying from lower Sonoran desert to mixed conifer forest.
This is one of the most diverse biological communities of
any contiguous landholding in the United States Of
particular interest is the wildlife ecology of the reservation
About 75 species of mammals and 250 species of birds are
found, including ten big game species, eight small game
species (not including waterfowl), and dozens of neo-
tropical bird species. Large portions of the reservation are
de facto wildemess areas, including the regionally famous
"Mineral Stnp" (that part of the reservation south of the Gila River). The status of threatened,
endangered, and candidate species is summarized as follows:
Reference Map
Arizona
San Carlos
Apache Res.
Species
T& E status
use of reservation
current management
bald eagle
listed
several nests, probably over
100 in wintering population
some nest protection only
peregrine falcon
listed
several nesting sites
none
spotted owl.
Mexican subspecies
candidate
approximately 12 known pairs,
approximately 35 identified
birds
monitored by tribal Forestry
Department due to lack of
wildlife management funding
northern goshawk
candidate
presence, nests documented
none
desert tortoise,
Mohave supspecies
candidate
documented from several
areas
none
Gila topminnow
listed
two of last ten known
populations
species maintained by San
Carios Fishenes Office
184
In addition to the diversity of wildlife populations, the reservation Is famous for quality of many species
(as measured by parameters such as body or antler size). Examples include:
• the largest antlers ever produced by the species Cervus elaphus (elk, red deer, etc.)
• two of the top ten bears on record
• the pending world record mountain lion
• record book pronghom antelope, bighom sheep, and Coues whitetail deer
As prescribed by San Carlos Apache Tribal Ordinance 76-1 , the affairs of the Tribe pertaining to outdoor
recreation and wildlife are administered by the San Carlos Recreation & Wildlife Commission, a five-
fribal member body that provides policy decisions for the Recreation & Wildlife Department. Such
commissions have been recognized as a key to success in tribal wildlife management.
As the director of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, and as the Tribe's first wildlife biologist from
1988 to eariy 1992, I testify that the federal funding level for wildlife management on the reservation is
far short of any normal standards. This is distressing, when the reservation ranks far higher than normal
standards in its wildlife management needs and potential.
The goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department is to preserve, protect, and enhance wildlife
populations on the reservation, for the benefit of the Tribe and for the benefit of the ecosystem itself.
Currently the Department consists of a Law Enforcement Division and a WiWIIfe Management Program.
The Law Enforcement Division is comprised of nine rangers, one dispatcher, and a security guard. The
WiWIife Management Program consists of one wildlife biologist and one wildlife technician. Supporting
staff for the entire Department includes a maintenance man and three secretaries. The cunrent budget of
the Department is about $696,000. $120,000 of this is federally funded.
Please consider that: 1) Larger acreages (after the startup cost curve is overcome) require larger per-
acre expenditures due to motor vehicle operation/repair costs and time required by field personnel to
access the resource, and, 2) Less developed acreages require larger per-acre expenditures due to
difficulty of access, and, 3) Acreages with greater biodiversity require larger per-acre expenditures
due to the variety of species and issues to handle.
The San Carios Apache Reservation is the fourth largest reservation in the United States and is one of
the least-developed of all reservations (with only two significant communities on the entire 1 .8 million
acres). And, I must re-iterate, the San Carios Apache Reservation has perhaps the most biodiversity of
any contiguous landholding in the states. This indicates that the San Carios Apache Tribe should be
funded at a higher per/acre level than most federal acreages, not at a lesser level. 4
To accomplish the goal of the Department, a budget of $1 ,775,000 is required, of which $1 ,200,000 is
requested of Congress. The following pages provide the justification for this budget.
I
185
Information Branch
Information Branch
(No Branch Supervisor)
Public Relations Unit
Education Unit
Information Officer
Secretary (3)
Education Coordinator
Intern (4)
Information Officer - Answers public inquiries pertaining to hunting, fishing, and other outdoor
pursuits on the reservation. Prepares promotional and educational publications (for free and for
revenue). Processes public comment data. Writes news articJes and other press releases.
Arranges promotional events. Documents how promotional activities result in increased
revenue.
Secretary - Answers basic inquiries pertaining to outdoor pursuits on the reservation. Sells
permits and other items. Maintains files pertaining to permit sales and Department personnel.
Sends information to those that request it.
Education Coordinator - Organizes and gives presentations for tribal elementary and high
schools. Assists schools in the incorporation of Project Wild curriculum. Provides tours and
presentations to visiting groups. Prepares educational handouts for public distribution. Serves
as infomiation officer in absence of infomiation officer. Supervises and assists intems in
successfully completing their college curricula.
Intern - Attends college for twra semesters per year, worics for Department other four months per
year. Majors in wildlife science, administration of justice (with virildlife minor), or similar field.
Prepares for professional position with Department or other tribal department or program.
Performs wildlife technician or related duties virtiile worthing for Department as intern.
186
Wildlife Management Branch
Branch Supervisor
•
Population
Unit
Habitat
Unit
Nongame
Unit
Popu
Biol
ation
jgist
Har
Biol
vest
3glst
Forest Habitat Biodiversity Animal
Specialist Specialist Damage
Control Agent
Range Habitat
Specialist
Wild!
1
feTe
chnic
an
Wildlife Technician (2)
Wildlife Technician
Senior Biologist - Coordinates activities of Wildlife Management Braru:h. assists other biologists on an as-needed basis,
prevents duplicity of duties amongst subordinate biologists, conducts Geographic Information System activities, coordinates
cooperatrve projects with state and federal agencies
Population Biologist - Monitors population parameters of elk, mule deer, Coues deer, pronghorn, Rocl<y Mountain bighorn,
desert bighorn, javelina, turkey, bear, lion, and small game species Methods include foot, horseback, vehicular, and aenal
surveys Identifies limiting factors for each species Organizes research projects pertaining to game populations Conducts
statistical analyses on population trends and potential
Harvest Biologist - Monitors harvests of elk, mule deer, Coues deer, pronghorn. Rocky Mountain bighorn, desert bighorn,
javelina, turkey, bear, lion, and small game species. Analyzes biological samples obtained from harvests. Provides data to
population biologist and financial planner Formulates harvest strategies in consultation with population biologist and provides
harvest recommendations to director.
Wildlife Technician (Population Unit) - Assists population biologist and harvest biologist in conducting wildlife and hunter
surveys Enters data into computer files
Forest Habitat Specialist - Prepares and implements habitat improvement projects in forested and wooded areas Conducts
inventory on important forest habitat features such as turkey roosts, elk security corndors, elk calving areas, nesting sites for
many species, etc Plans controlled bums in forested areas to enharK;e forage for big game species. Organizes research
pertaining to wildlife in forests and vraodlands. Provides data to forest wildlife planner.
Forest Habitat Technician ■
Supervises labor crews.
Assists forest habitat specialist in habitat inventones. Conducts habitat improvements.
Range Habitat Specialist - Prepares and implements habitat improvement projects in rangelands Conducts inventory on
important range habitat features such as water holes, bighorn lambing areas, etc Plans controlled range fires to enhance
forage for big game species. Organizes research pertaining to wildlife in rangelands Provides data to range vinldlife planner
Range Habitat Technician - Assists range habitat specialist in habitat inventones. Conducts habitat improvements
Supervises labor crews
Biodiversity Specialist - Monitors populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive speaes Assists forest
wildlife planner in developing guidelines for timber sale administration. Provides biological assessments for other tnbal
departments dealing with NEPA or Endangered Species Act requiremerrts
Animal Damage Control Agent - Controls populations of animals that are limiting populations of big game and other valuable
species.
187
To accomplish the goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, the future structure of
the Department should be as follows. The budget required to implement this stnjcture
is $1 ,775,000 in 1993 dollars. Proceeding pages give breakdowns of each branch
within the Department.
Tribal Executive Director
Tribal Council
Recreation & Wildlife Commission
Director's Office
Law Enforcement
Branch
Internal Planning
Branch
Information
Branch
Wildlife Management
Branch
The Law Enforcement Branch is responsible for enforcing Tribal Ordinance 76-1 and annual
Commission Orders. In addition, it assists other enforcement agencies in the enforcement of other tribal
and federal conservation laws, and assists the Wildlife Management Branch in data collection. The
annual budget required to administer this Branch is $770,000. This budget includes the director's salary
and director's office expenditures.
The Internal Planning Branch is the support branch of the Department, providing both current support
and preparatory support for the Department's future. This support can be physical, financial, or
administrative. This is the Branch most involved, along with the Director, in program development. This
Branch also coordinates Department efforts with the San Cartos Planning Department. The annual
budget required to administer this Branch is $295,000.
The Infonnation Branch is responsible for providing the public with infonnation pertaining to rules,
regulations, and orders of the Recreation & Wildlife Commission, and for providing educational services
to the reservation school systems. The Branch also consists of tribal member trainees that m\\ learn the
duties of all administrative and professional positions in the Department. The annual budget required to
administer this Branch is $205,000.
The Wildlife Management Brangh is responsible for monitoring wildlife populations, monitoring the
harvests of hunters, providing recommendations for hunting regulations, monitoring and improving
wildlife habitat, and controlling problem animals. The annual budget required to administer this Branch is
$505,000.
188
Law Enforcement Branch
Branch Supervisor
Patrol Unit A
Investigation Unit
Field Supervisor
Game Ranger (6)
Support Unit
Patrol Unit B
Investigator (2)
Dispatcher (2)
Security Guard
Field Supervisor
Game Ranger (6)
Chief Ranger - Administers and coordinates lawr enforcement activities. Manages the Lsm
Enforcement Branch fleet. Conducts time-keeping of Branch personnel. Prioritizes investigation
and enforcement activities. Coordinates training for rangers. Enforces all laws enforced by
game rangers. Provides recommendations on revisions of tribal law.
Field Supervisor - Supervises game rangers. Coordinates patrol efforts. Schedules game
rangers' shifts. Assists chief ranger in coordinating training. Enforces all lav« enforced by game
rangers.
Game Ranger - Enforces Code 76-1 and other tribal and federal laws. Serves processes and
notices. Executes warrants and sut)poenas issued for violations of the provisions of Code 76-1
Recreation & Wildlife Commission Orders. Conducts searches without a warrant when there is
probable cause to believe that tribal property is possessed in violation of the law. Seizes wildlife,
evidence, and devices possessed in violation of the law. Collects data of use to the Wildlife
Management Branch.
Investigator- Conducts investigations pertaining to Code 76-1 and other tribal laws. Assists
game rangers in surveillance activities. Enforces tribal laws in atjsence of game rangers. Trains
game rangers in investigation techniques. Coordinates undercover operations.
Dispatcher - Conducts safety checks of all Branch personnel. Provides secretarial assistance to
chief ranger. Answers phone calls. Manages law enforcement filing system.
Security Guard - Keeps buildings and grounds secured during nighttime hours.
189
Internal Planning Branch
Branch Supervisof
Fish and Wildlife
Planning Unit
Outdoor Recreation
Planning Unit
Maintenance
Planning Unit
Financial
Planning Unit
Range Wildlife Ranner
Forest Wildlife Planner
Recreation Planner
Maintenance Man
Campground Foreman
Financial Planner
Bookeeper
Chief Planner - Coordinates with San Carlos Planning Department, provides guidance and assistance to
internal planners on an as-needed basis, coordinates any lobbying efforts undertaken by the Department,
prevents duplicity of duties amongst sutwrdinate planners, conducts and coordinates Geographic
Information System activities, represents Department in planning activities with U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (Fisheries Assistance Office), plans office layout and construction activities, handles Department
insurance policies.
Range Wildlife Planner - represents the Department in interdisciplinary planning sessions with cattle
associations and Fire Management Program, assists cattle associations in preparation of management
plans, develops bum plans and works with Fire Management Program to implement them, assists
Wildlife Management Branch in preparation of range improvement projects.
Forest Wildlife Planner - represents the Department in interdisciplinary planning sessions with Forestry
Department and Fire Management Program, reviews timber sales, composes guidelines for timber
management activities, assists Wildlife Management Branch in preparation of habitat improvement
projects in wooded and forested areas, writes grant proposals for habitat work in forests.
Recreation Planner - represents the Department in interdisciplinary planning sessions, writes grant
proposals for outdoor recreation developments, develops campground facilities, develops interpretive
facilities including trails, signs, and infonnation points, interviews public to determine outdoor activity
trends and demands.
Maintenance Man - maintains Department property including buildings, grounds, and equipment.
Campground Foreman - with help of TWEP workers, removes trash from campgrounds, helps with
general upkeep of recreation facilities.
Financial Planner - conducts studies on revenue maximization and optimization, maintains permit sales
system, provides recommendations to Recreation & Wildlife Commission on annual permit fees,
organizes marketing campaigns to increase demand of resource, conducts major purchasing activities.
Bookeeper - maintains accounting system of Department purchases and revenue accounts, conducts
lesser purchasing activities.
68-141 - 93 - 7
190
SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBAL COUNCIL
cJrxlal [riffarrs tfjuiUmg
POST OFFICE BOX 737
IGNACIO, COLORADO 8U37
303-563-4525
FAX 303-563-4033
LEONARD C- BURCH. CM»|HM«N
VIDA B PEABODY. VICE CHAIRMAN
CLEMENT J FROST, COUNCIL MEMBER
LILLIAN I SEIBEL. COUNCIL MEMBER
HOWARD D RICHARDS, council member
ORIAN L BOX. COUNCIL MEMBER
EVALYN L, HUDSON, COUNCIL MEMBER
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT
Testimony of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Leonard C. Burch , Chairman
T am Leonard C. Burch, Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these written comments on
issues relating to the management and enhancement of Indian fish
and wildlife resources.
The Southern Ute Indian Reservation lies in southwestern Colorado,
in Archuleta, La Plata and Montezuma counties. The exterior
boundaries encompass 720,000 acres. Approximately 304,980 are
Tribal owned and the remaining acres Non-Indian owned, resulting in
a "checkerboard" land ownership pattern. Tribal membership within
our tribe is 1250 members and our tribal headquarters is located in
Tgnacio, Colorado.
Generations of Native Americans have developed lifestyles,
cultures, religious beliefs and customs around their relationships
with fish and wildlife resources. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is
no exception. Today, however, some of this valuable heritage has
been lost and there is danger of losing more. The ever-expanding
human populations and the increasing demand for recreational
opportunities has dramatically applied pressure upon tribal fish
and wildlife resources.
In the past, reliance had been placed on Federal and State agencies
to provide professional and technical support in the management of
tribal fish and wildlife resources. However the level of
assistance provide limited, if any assistance for the resources,
except in setting seasons, baglimits and enforcement of Non-
Indians.
Tribes in recent years, have begun to exert their jurisdiction over
tribal fish and wildlife and have developed professional management
programs employing "state of the art" techniques and strategies,
balancing biological and ecological principles to insure sound
management is afforded the fish and wildlife species.
191
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe recognizing the cultural, economic
and recreational values of fish and wildlife resources created by
tribal resolution in 1962, the Fish and Game Department. Since its
inception, the Wildlife Conservation Department has gone through
progressive changes. Antiquated wildlife codes and regulations
were revised in 1969, 1976, 1985 and 1989. A cooperative agreement
between the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Tribe was
established in 1972. In 1988, a proposal was initiated that
outlined a logical approach to the development of professional
tribal expertise and capabilities in managing tribal fish and
wildlife resources. This proposal became reality in 1989 with the
hiring of a tribal wildlife biologist. This proposal was further
strengthen by the development of a Tribal Natural Resources
Management Plan in 1990. The plan integrated the developed fish
and wildlife goals and objectives into a comprehensive Multi-
resources plan.
Although in the infancy stage of development, this program is the
building foundation for the development of tribal expertise and
capabilities in managing our fish and wildlife resources. The
importance of natural resources to the tribe is exemplified by the
dedication and commitment to the development of sound biological
management programs to insure fish and wildlife resources can be
enjoyed by future generations.
The tribe's Wildlife Conservation Department has nine employees, a
Department Director, Program Assistant, Wildlife Biologist,
Wildlife Technician, and 5 Wildlife conservation officers. The
tribe actively participates with the scientific wildlife community
and is currently members of the Native American Fish and Wildlife
Society, Inter-tribal Bison Cooperative, Wildlife Society, San Juan
Interstate Working Group, Mule deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation and other organizations involved in the conservation and
management of the fish and wildlife resources. The enforcement
section of the department is given the enormous task of patrolling
860 miles of tribal boundaries enforcing the Tribal Wildlife
Conservation code.
Revenues to fund the department is derived from the sale of hunting
and fishing permits to Non-member sportsmen. Hunting permits are
sold for mule deer, elk and mountain lion and produce about
$125,000 annually. Revenues generated by the sale of permits are
deposited into the Tribal general fund which are then reallocated
to fund not only the department, but other tribal programs as well.
We have spent an average of $284,954 annually since 1986 and in
1993, $398,855 was allocated to the department. While the tribe
has sought alternative funding from the state of Colorado and
private organizations, little is available. We receive no federal
funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs even though a P.L. 93-638
grant proposal was submitted in 1989. The BIA Southern Ute Agency
does not employ a Wildlife or Fishery biologist. Fortunately
though, we have been able to receive limited technical assistance
from the BIA Albuquerque Area Office Wildlife and Fishery
Biologists. However, they are also responsible for coordinating
192
wildlife and fisheries management- activities on 22 other
reservations within the Albuquerque Area.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,. T am sure you will
agree that we have done a commendable job despite our limited
financial resources. Although, we have taken the initiative to
develop our own capabilities, we have realized that present funding
levels are not sufficient if we are to continue our progressive
development. Federal funding to aid in the development of Tribal
fish and wildlife programs has been non-existent. This appears to
be prevalent not only with our Tribe but throughout Indian country
as a whole. We are in dire need of assistance to remedy this
situation .
At this time T would like to respectfully present some
recommendations for the subcommittees consideration.
1. Direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fulfill their trust
responsibility in fishery and wildlife management and direct
more dollars for this effort.
2. Direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make available a
set amount of the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson
Administrative funds and the Reverted funds for tribal fishery
and wildlife programs and projects.
3. Work with congress to amend the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-
Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts to allow full tribal participation
in funding of fishery and wildlife projects.
4. Work with congress and the tribes to draft and introduce a
Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act that will
legislatively mandate and guarantee tribal governments full
participation in management of fisheries and wildlife resources
including adequate funding to rectify the budget shortfalls.
5. Consider the option of having the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service be the primary agency to provide technical assistance
to tribes. As you know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
mission is 100 percent fishery and wildlife management
oriented. Consequently, 100 percent of their funding and
effort is allocated for that purpose. On the other hand, we
find the BIA's mission to be "complex" in that it deals with a
multitude of programs including education, economic
development, roads, law enforcement , social services, forestry,
range, water rights, and archaeology, to name a few. These
individual programs must compete with one another for funding
and unfortunately, fishery and wildlife resources management
programs are usually under-funded, if even funded at all. We
receive no direct BIA funding for fish and wildlife management
programs .
193
Tf you require additional information regarding any of the items
submitted in this testimony. T will provide you with details at
your request .
Tn closing, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe extends our sincere
appreciation for the opportunity to submit written testimony. We
wish you the best of luck with all your duties and sincerely hope
that you will assist not only our tribe but all tribes nation-wide.
We look forward to working with the committee to enhance tribal
fish and wildlife programs.
194
Albert (Big Abe) LeBlanc Building
186 East Three Mile Road
Sault Ste, Marie, Ml 49783
(906) 632-0043
Fax (906) 632-1141
TESTIMONY OF FAITH McGRUTHER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
of the
CHIPPEWA-OTTAWA TREATY FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Before the
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
March 17, 1993
I
I
195
Testimony of Faith McGruther, Executive Director
Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority
COTFMA Organization and Functions
The Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority
(COTFMA) is an inter-tribal entity formed by its member
tribes as a result of many years of litigation with the
State of Michigan over the scope and extent of the right
to fish in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes.
Created in 1981 by inter-tribal agreement by the Bay Mills
Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians, and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa /Chippewa,
COTFMA was delegated the responsibility of "regulating the
fishing activity by members of the Tribes".
Fishing in the Great Lakes waters is guaranteed to the
constituent Tribes by the Treaty of March 28, 1836 (7
Stat. 491) . Litigation with the State concerning the
continued existence of this right, and the State's ability
to regulate member fishing, proceeded simultaneously in
State and federal courts in the 1970 's. The first
decision on these issues was announced by the Michigan
Supreme Court in People v. LeBlanc , 399 Mich. 31, 248
N.W.2d 199 (1976). The Court recognized the paramount
status of the treaty right, and established standards for
permissible State regulation of treaty-protected fishing.
Back in 1976, two Tribes were recognized as governments by
the United States — the Bay Mills Indian Community and the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Both Tribes
had instituted conservation regulations applicable to
their members' fishing activities in ceded waters. [See,
for example. Conservation Code of the Bay Mills Indian
Community (1973)]. Only tribal regulations applied to
treaty fishers, as the State's regulations could not meet
the standard required in LeBlanc.
In 1979, the federal court affirmed the LeBlanc holdings
regarding the viability of the 1836 Treaty's usufructuary
rights and went so far as to find State regulation of any
kind to be invalid as a matter of law. United States v.
Michigan, 471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Mich. 1979) Federal
regulations were promulgated in 1979 under then 25 C.F.R.
Part 256 (now Part 249) , which were withdrawn the
following year. State efforts to regulate tribal
commercial fishing activities were rejected by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Michigan, 653
F.2d 277 (6th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1124
(1981) in favor of the tribal fishing regulations enacted
by the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the newly-f ederally
recognized Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa.
-1-
196
Those regulatory efforts culminated with the founding in
1981 of the inter-tribal entity known as COTFMA, which
ensured uniform minimum fishing regulations, while
allowing the individual tribes to establish their own,
more restrictive regulations if they so chose.
Additionally, subsistence fishing remained the exclusive
regulatory province of each tribe. These regulations were
found to be effective in protecting the fishery resource
by the United States District Court in an unreported
decision in 1982.
Since its founding, COTFMA has received funding from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to contracts issued
under the terms of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (commonly
termed P.L. 93-638). In 1985, the U.S. District Court
issued an order under which fishing in the 1836 treaty
waters was allocated; under that order, funds for COTFMA 's
activities have annually been appropriated by the Congress
of the United States, with certain funds additionally
provided pursuant to the Court's order for hatchery
production, marketing assistance and fishing gear
upgrading. These special purpose funds are supplemented
by State monies provided under the terms of the Court's
1985 decree. All special purpose funds have been placed
in a trust account, which COTFMA annually disburses with
the consent of the United States and the State of
Michigan. For the last several years, COTFMA 's annual
Congressional appropriation has been $1.4 million.
Federal financial support has always been based on the
principle of the trust relationship the United States has
undertaken in respect to Indian tribes. Commonly cited in
discussions about the rights reserved in the 1836 Treaty
and the Tribes' efforts to implement and benefit from them
is the 1981 statement of the Court of Appeals:
The protection of those [treaty-guaranteed
fishing] rights is the solemn obligation of
the federal government, and no principle of
federalism requires the federal government to
defer to states in connection with the
protection of those rights. The
responsibility of the federal government to
protect Indian treaty rights from encroachment
by state and local governments is an ancient
and well-established responsibility of the
national government.
United States v. Michigan, supra, 653 F.2d at 278-279.
COTFMA ' s earmarked appropriation falls under the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, with funds administered under P.L. 93-638.
Each funding cycle, the member Tribes determine which
-2-
197
management functions they choose to undertake by contract.
This determination is made by a six-member Board of
Directors, comprised of the Chairpersons of the member
Tribes and the Conservation Committee Chairpersons of each
of the member Tribes, Serving ex officio on the Board are
a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a
representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Before turning to the description of the components of the
COTFMA areas of responsibility, it is important to outline
the scope of the rights reserved under the Treaty of 1836.
The signatory Tribes not only reserved the right to catch
the fish found in the Treaty-ceded waters, but also
reserved the right to regulate the manner and means by
which their members would undertake that harvest. United
States V. Michigan, supra, 471 F. Supp. at 273-274. This
component is termed "effective Indian tribal self-
regulation" by the appellate court in United States v.
Michigan, supra, 653 F.2d at 279. Effective
self-regulation is not limited to the legislative function
of rule promulgation; it also includes the enforcement of
those regulations through the detection of violations of
the Tribes' regulations (conservation wardens) and the
adjudication of the resultant citations (conservation
court) . United States v. Michigan, supra, 471 F. Supp. at
273.
The rights guaranteed by treaty are meaningless, however,
in the absence of a viable fishery. Whether termed an
element of the treaty right, itself, or as an
implementation of court orders regarding the treaty
fishery, the Tribes must conduct fishery assessment and
enhancement activities in order to protect the resource
from irreversible harm. This is the element of tribal
self -regulation termed "management." For the COTFMA-
member tribes, management functions have been shared with
the State of Michigan and the United States by the 1985
court decree. Further, as the court recognized in its
decree, access to the resource is essential in order to
harvest its bounty; significant amounts of money and
personnel have been expended in locating and developing
docking sites and ramps for tribal fishing boats.
Effective tribal self-regulation in the United States v.
Michigan case area consists of the following elements:
1. Enactment of conservation-based regulations
governing the manner and means by which tribal members may
exercise the right to fish in ceded waters;
2. Staffing of conservation enforcement departments;
3. Establishment of adjudicatory bodies to determine
the existence of violations of the fishing regulations;
-3-
198
and
4. Conduct of fisheries protection and enhancement
programs and access development.
COTFMA carries out all of the above self-regulation
functions, through the actions of the entities next
described.
1. Regulations. The COTFMA Board of Directors enacts
the uniform regulations applicable to all tribal members
seeking to exercise the treaty right to fish. (The
composition of the Board is described herein.) Each Tribe
has the power to enact its own regulations governing
subsistence fishing, as well as to implement commercial
fishing regulations which are more restrictive than
adopted by COTFMA. These regulations, as well as initial
consideration of the uniform regulations, are adopted by
each Tribe's Conservation Committee.
2. Enforcement Personnel. Each of the member Tribes
has a conservation department, which employs law
enforcement personnel to detect violations of the COTFMA
regulations and those enacted by each Tribe. Bay Mills
and Grand Traverse Band's wardens are employed for this
sole purpose. Personnel employed by the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe are termed "public safety" officers, and combine
general law enforcement duties with conservation
enforcement responsibilities. Each conservation
enforcement program is the subject of a contract with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs under P.L. 93-638. The Bureau
supplements the enforcement staff with its own
conservation warden component.
3. Conservation Court. Members of the Bay Mills
Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe who
violate treaty fishing regulations are cited to appear
before the Chippewa-Ottawa Conservation Court. This
Court's exclusive purpose is to adjudicate such
violations, for the two Tribes each separately maintain a
Tribal Court for adjudication of other matters. The Court
is administered by the Bay Mills Indian Community under a
P.L. 93-638 contract. Distance from this forum for the
Grand Traverse Band caused the Tribe to obtain a separate
contract for adjudication of fishing violations in its
Tribal Court.
4. Management Functions. Fisheries assessment and
enhancement activities are carried out by the Inter-Tribal
Fisheries and Assessment Program, which is administered by
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe under a P.L. 93-638 contract.
The Program conducts population studies and analyses,
operates a fish hatchery, stocks hatchery-
produced fish, advises the Board on the need for
conservation regulations, coordinates its activities with
-4-
199
the United States, the State of Michigan and the Province
of Ontario, and represents COTFMA on such bodies as the
Great Lakes Fish Commission and its Lake Committees. The
Grand Traverse Band employs biological expertise for
management of the fishery resource contained in Grand
Traverse Bay, pursuant to a separate P.L. 93-638 contract.
Access site identification, acquisition and development is
conducted by staff employed by COTFMA under its master
contract.
COTFMA 's master contract also includes central staff to
coordinate and facilitate the conduct of the self-
regulation functions described above. The contract also
provides financial support for Board members, who meet
monthly to conduct business.
An integral element of the fishery management task for the
COTFMA member tribes is their participation in the
Executive Council, established by the 1985 federal court
order to facilitate resolution of disputes concerning
fisheries enhancement, fishing access, user competition
for available resources, and fishing regulation. That
body is composed of the tribal chairs of the member
tribes, along with a representative of the Michigan DNR
and of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Council
is required to undertake all actions unanimously, and must
meet quarterly. The Council has no budget of its own, and
receives administrative support from COTFMA staff. The
Council's effectiveness is primarily as an information-
sharing opportunity, as the unanimity requirement hinders
it from taking any stand regarding controversial matters —
and most matters confronting the Great Lakes fisheries
resources are controversial.
Treaty Fishery Management
At first glance, it would appear that management of the
tribal fishery is completely a matter of fisheries
science, relating to the assessment of fish stocks over
time and designing regulations to ensure harvestable
surpluses over time. Any fishery manager would add the
other elements of management which are not biological,
meaning the politics of resource management are integral
and sometimes obstructive of good policy implementation.
Off-Reservation treaty natural resources are generally
shared with other users. No court has ever indicated that
the tribes' rights to resources are exclusive (although
there has been dicta to that effect) . In practice this
has meant that allocation of harvest opportunity has been
the biggest element of day-to-day management — who fishes
where, when, and with what amount of gear. Such
management decisions are only effective in the absence of
-5-
200
conflict with other management entities. In the
1836-treaty ceded waters, management conflicts exist not
only with the State of Michigan, but with the other
jurisdictions with regulatory authority over a portion of
the same territory: the Province of Ontario and the States
of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and in many
cases, the Great Lakes states bordering Lakes Erie and
Ontario. The tribes are justly proud of insisting upon
and obtaining a voice in the Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission, but that voice is muted by the number of
jurisdictions whose views must be taken into account, and
by the lack of overall management authority in that body.
The areas of conflict increase exponentially when other
aspects of resource management and protection are taken
into account. They include: air and water pollution, non-
indigenous species introduction, habitat degradation, soil
erosion, shoreline development, water level regulation,
and navigation restrictions. In these areas, the tribes'
concerns about fishery resource protection and enhancement
have no guaranteed listener, at all. Regulation of these
subjects is a unpaltable stew of local, state and federal
agencies, who often have no responsibility to consult with
each other, and certainly feel no obligation to consult
with the tribes.
The contemporary status of treaty rights is less dependent
on recognition by a court for viability, but of
problematic worth to the tribal signatories. No permanent
guarantee of a right to fish is of benefit if (1) there
are insufficient fish to catch, or (2) the fish available
are dangerous to consume, or tribal fishers are prevented
by conflict from harvesting. The ability of tribes to
protect the continued existence of their usufructuary
rights is not known; years of litigation before the courts
and administrative tribunals may be rec^uired before the
right of the tribe to have mandated review of the impact
on the treaty resource, prior to the issuance of a permit
or license. Even more necessary is the establishment of a
mechanism by which tribal concerns are taken into account
by regulatory agencies in setting standards or in
determining the need for enforcement actions. These
mechanisms are certainly non-existent at present.
The Need for Federal Legislation
In general, the responsibility of the United States to
protect tribal property (the trust responsibility
doctrine) has developed from court decisions going back
160 years. The courts since then have issued directives
concerning the nature and scope of that responsibility,
but there is no analogous comprehensive description of the
duties of the United States in any legislative enactment
-6-
201
by the Congress. This presents continuing and numerous
incentives for initiating further litigation — as court
decisions are subject to differing interpretations as to
their application to new factual situations. Litigation
is a burden, too often borne by the least able to do so —
the Tribes.
When it is the United States which is asked to file suit
on behalf of a tribe for protection of its trust property
(fish and game, for example) , there again exists many view
points within the various offices in the Departments of
the Interior and Justice as to what position the United
States should adopt in carrying out its trust
responsibility. This places the Tribes at the risk of
losing trust property to an inter-agency decision-making
process.
Recommendation No. 1. Therefore the Congress must enact
comprehensive legislation which describes the nature and
scope of the trust responsibility of the United States to
protect and enhance tribal trust natural resources,
wherever such may be located.
The scope of the federal government's trust responsibility
to protect tribal natural resources has usually been
limited in practice to the U.S. Department of the
Interior. However, many other Departments and agencies
have programmatic responsibility to regulate conduct which
has direct and substantial impact on tribal trust
resources. The list which follows is not intended to be
comprehensive, but certainly illustrates the extent to
which the federal government as a whole is seriously
deficient in protecting tribal trust property:
* The State Department has a significant role in
shaping U.S. participation in international regulatory/
informational/ management entities such as the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission. The responsibility for control of
the parasitic sea lamprey, which continues to threaten
the Great Lakes fisheries, lies within this Department.
* The Commerce Department includes the U.S. Coast
Guard, which establishes regulations concerning shipping
and navigation in the Great Lakes. Such matters as oil
spill control, ballast/ bilge discharges of non-
indegenous organisms, (SEE, the Non-Indigenous Aguatic
Nuisance Control and Prevention Act) and safety regulation
of vessels directly affect the health of the treaty
fishery and the manner in which tribal fishermen may
harvest the resource. NOAA regulations have a similar
impact on the Great Lakes treaty fishery.
-7-
202
* The Defense Department also impacts the treaty
fishery through its regulation of shoreline development
and underwater dredging in the Army Corps of Engineers.
Both activities have an immediate impact on fishery
habitats and the ability of tribal fishers to gain access
to the resource through marinas and boat ramps. The
Corps's regulation of wetland management and development,
in particular, significantly and directly impacts tribal
lands.
* The Department of Agriculture contains the US Forest
Service, which directly affects inland fish and game
resources, but also affects the Great Lakes treaty fishery
through its boat access ramp policies. More
significantly, the Department establishes toxin levels for
fish sold for human consumption and has enforcement powers
to prohibit the sale of contaminated fish.
* The Environmental Protection Agency regulates both
directly and indirectly the air and water pollutants which
impact on the Great Lakes fishery. Although discharge
permits are generally handled by state agencies under
approved plans, the EPA sets the standards.
* The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses
power plants which, when sited on the Great Lakes
shoreline or tributary streams, adversely impact fishery
habitat.
Recommendation No. 2. It is essential for adequate protection
by the United States of the trust resources that all
federal agencies and departments have that mandate and
responsibility expressly declared in federal law.
Tribes have fought long and hard to establish their right
to manage, preserve and enhance their natural resources.
Limiting COTFMA's comments to of f -Reservation trust
resources, tribal self -regulatory capacity has been a
legal precondition for excluding States from regulating
tribal member harvesting activities. That capacity is in
the areas of biological assessment and monitoring, harvest
regulations, and enforcement systems. These systems are
not self-supporting, and have required financial support
from the Congress in order to function; the annual
appropriations process includes funds earmarked for
inter-tribal natural resource management programs. COTFMA
itself receives its base budget from Congress to carry out
its functions.
What Congress gives, however. Congress can also take away.
Tribal self-regulation (to the exclusion of State
regulation) is hostage to the federal budget process. It
is within Congress's power to end tribal self-regulatory
capacity simply by reducing the funds necessary for
-8-
1
203
regulatory functions. This result not only ends tribal
ability to manage resources according to their own goals
and objectives, but also places trust resource protection
in the hands of State agencies, whose hostility to tribal
natural resource rights is endemic and real. To date,
tribes have sought to ensure funding continuity by placing
resource protection funds in the "base"; this strategy is
only effective to the extent that Congress's budgetary
process follows the same procedures as are currently in
place.
Recommendation No. 3. The United States must explicitly
recognize, in the recommended trust legislation, that
minimally adequate funding of tribal trust protection/
management programs is an integral element of the federal
government's trust responsibility and is not to be
considered a matter of discretionary policy.
As should be clear from the above comments on the state of
tribal resource protection efforts, tribal infrastructure
has developed in the area of fisheries and wildlife
science and management. It does no good for the Tribes to
have sophisticated management practices if they cannot
obtain the ears of others whose decisions equally affect
the status of tribal trust natural resources. The Tribes
are currently voices calling in the dark; no one is
required to hear what is being said. What is needed is
more than a requirement for consultation with Tribes — that
often means in practice that Tribes are advised by other
entities of intended action and their comments and/or
objections are not heeded. Tribes need to have accorded
to them the same respect as other governments with
responsibility for their lands and resources, and that
includes mandated inclusion in any body established or
subject to federal law concerning natural resources
issues.
Recommendation No. 4. Federal legislation should include
mandatory inclusion of tribal representatives in any and
all decision-making entities established or funded by the
United States whose actions directly affect the viability
of tribal fish, game, land and water resources.
-9-
204
Conclusion
Tribal natural resources are the sinew of tribal culture
and history, providing a continuity from times past to J
times beyond our ability to imagine. They are not "
artifacts of a lifeway which no longer has contemporary
meaning. They constitute the basic economy of the Tribes
in the 1836 cession of the Great Lakes. In order to
ensure the continued existence of these resources for
future generations, the United States must enact
legislation which establishes the authority for all
federal agencies to participate in the trustee's role of
prudent management.
-10-
205
RED LAKE BAND
of CHIPPEWA INDIANS
Red Lake, MN 56671
DIVISION:
Phone 218-679-3341 • Fax 218-679-3378
TRIBAL COUNCIL
Organized April 18. 1918
(Reviled ConiLilulion A Dy-Lawi.
January G, 1959)
OFFICERS:
GERALD F. BHUN. Choimnn
DOBDY V-IIITEFEATMER, Sccrclary
JAME3 STnONG. TVcaiu/cr
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES:
ROMAN P STATELY. JR.
FAUlAN COOK
LORNA L FAIRDANKS
PRESTON CRAVTS
LAWRENCE BEDEAU
ALLEN ENGLISH. JR.
TOM J STILLDAY. JR.
CLIFFORD C HARDY
AD\aS0RY COUNCIL:
7 HEREDITARY CHEEPS
CHIEF COL?»'CIL OF 1689
Mfly-dwa)-p*a-no-nind
.Nah-gsun-e-gwon-obe
May»-co-co-cm*-ay
Ahnah-me-8>''gC'fhig
Naw-aytah-'-owb
Nah-wah-quBy-gc-fhig
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GERALD F. BRUN, CHAIRMAN
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDL\NS
TRIBAL COUNCIL
Before the House Committee on Natural Resources
and its Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
February 18, 1993
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present testimony on behalf of the Red Lake Nation and its Reservation at this oversight
hearing on fish and wildlife conservation in Indian Country.
Red Lake has a serious problem. Our natural resources, our fish and wildlife, are
threatened on several fronts. Our wild game is being slaughtered by criminal trespassers.
Our fish are being contaminated. Our water is being polluted, our air befouled.
Our Reservation and all of the life within it is very important to us. We are striving
to protect these resources but funds are inadequate and only sporadically available.
A comprehensive tribal fish and wildlife conservation and enforcement bill is needed.
In general, we strongly support the bill proposed by the Native American Fish and Wildlife
Society.
We also ask that you consider several additional items in developing legislation:
Red Lake Enterprises: Red Lake Sawmill, Red Lake Fishing Industry,
Red Lake Bingo, Red Lake Builders, Chippewa Trading Post-Red Lake & Ponennah
206
Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs SuBcoMMirrEE
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
strengthen Reservation trespass penalties to deter poaching on Reservations
set aside funds to Tribes from the federal fish and wildlife conservation
assistance programs
authorize funds for stable and consistent comprehensive tribal government
natural resource core management operations
protect against environmental threats to Reservation fish and wildlife
resources that are diminishing their value
affirm that the United States' trust responsibility to Indian Tribes is the
obligation of each federal agency, not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs
direct each federal agency to deal with and fund tribal government fish,
wildlife and environmental resource projects on an equal basis and a
proportional level to that enjoyed by state and local governments
My staff would be happy to work with the Subcommittee staff in refining these ideas
into legislation. The rest of our testimony will focus on strengthening the Reservation
trespass law and allocating funding to tribal governments.
STRENGTHEN THE FEDERAL RESERVATION TRESPASS LAW
The Problem. Poaching and other illegal hunting and fishing activity on Indian
Reservations is on the increase, jeopardizing our fish and wildlife. In many cases, our
commercial livelihood is based on maintaining and enhancing the value of our natural
resources. When our natural resources are threatened, our jobs are threatened. In many
cases, our subsistence culture is interwoven with our natural resources. When our natural
resources are threatened, our way of life is threatened.
Some of the more flagrant poaching violations are carried out by non-members over
whom tribal governments like Red Lake have little or no enforcement powers. In such
cases, we strongly believe Congress must modernize the federal-Indian law enforcement
measures available to Indian Tribes and to their federal agency counterparts charged with
conservation enforcement on Indian Reservations.
Page 2 -
207
Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February i 8, 1 993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
Both the penalties and the enforcement procedures on Indian Reservations now lag
far behind state enforcement authorities on neighboring lands, making Reservations
increasingly inviting to lawless non-members who seek to gain a hunting or fishing advantage
by carrying out illegal hunting or fishing with little risk of getting anything more than a slap
on the wrist.
The wildlife conservation law enforcement efforts of Tribes like Red Lake are
increasingly frustrated by non-members who brazenly trespass on Reservation to hunt or fish,
knowing full well they face only mild penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1165 if caught. This
problem arises from the antiquity of the trespass statute penalties and from a chronic
underfunding of tribal conservation enforcement efforts. An effective solution will require
legislative amendment.
Example From Our Experience. Our Tribe prohibits all non-member hunting on our
closed Reservation. Last year. Red Lake Tribal Wardens discovered a group of non-Indian
poachers several miles within the well-marked borders of our Reservation. Carcass drag
marks and other evidence indicated the poachers appeared to have been hunting and killing
moose and deer over a period of days. This occurred well after the state hunting season in
nearby Minnesota had ended.
Our tribal wardens approached the poachers who fled at high-speed. The wardens
gave chase and eventually apprehended two non-Indians. Our wardens seized their rifles
and related hunting equipment, as well as a sophisticated plexiglass tree stand for spotting
game that was furnished with an elaborate heating system, chairs and other comforts. The
wardens also seized two "snow-planes", multi-purpose vehicles on large skis that are thrusted
by aircraft engine propellers.
We were shocked that our Reservation game, preserved as it has been from sporting
encroachments that have diminished wildlife populations in surrounding states, has now
become so desirable that it attracts outsiders with the latest in heated tree stands and big
game chase vehicles. Our Tribal Wardens were proud of their law enforcement work. But
if this case turns out like all the rest, they will quickly become discouraged.
Typically our wardens must release poachers at the edge of the Reservation and
prepare the prosecution paperwork for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Weeks later the
federal warden orders our tribal wardens to release property they have seized because the
violator has paid a bond. Months later our tribal wardens must travel for hours to testify
in federal court without reimbursement, often several times for each case. The outcome is
Page 3 ■
208
Testimony of Red Uke CHAmMAN Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
typically hollow -- poachers are cited by the federal wardens as Reservation trespassers
under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1165, fined $100 to $150, and released
with all their equipment. The maximum penalty under this law is a $200 fine and 90 days
imprisonment. Section 1165 authorizes only the confiscation of any game seized, it does not
authorize confiscation and forfeiture of a violator's poaching equipment.
When these same U.S. Fish and Wildlife wardens prosecute fish and game violators
on federal conservation and recreation areas, the maximum fine is $500 and one year
imprisonment. The federal wardens may confiscate seized equipment and either use it or
the proceeds from its sale to supplement the funding of local conservation enforcement
efforts.
In the surrounding state of Minnesota, state game wardens have even stronger
penalties to bring against fish and game violators, who face punishments of hunting or fishing
license revocation for life and a maximum fine of $3,000 and one year imprisonment.
Additionally, state wardens can and do confiscate seized equipment and devote it or the
proceeds of its sale to local conservation enforcement programs.
All this adds up to some very simple reasons why any shrewd poacher is going to
prefer to poach on an Indian Reservation rather than federal or state lands -- Indian
Reservations are where most of the game is, where there are the fewest conservation
enforcement officers, and where the possible penalties are the oldest and lightest.
The Solution. In an attachment to this testimony. Red Lake proposes amendment bill
language to strengthen the reservation trespass statute (18 U.S.C. § 1165).
The objective is to amend the law to stiffen the penalties for prohibited non-member
hunting and fishing on-Reservation, increasing the maximum fine from $200 to $3,000 and
the maximum jail term from 90 days to one year, and authorizing tribal confiscation and
forfeiture of violators' poaching equipment and vehicles.
This amendment is necessary to make Indian Reservations less attractive to poachers
and other non-Indian trespassers. Tribal game wardens need this kind of support; otherwise
their apprehension activities are nearly futile and our game is at even greater peril.
The penalties in 18 U.S.C. § 1165 have not been altered for more than thirty years
and inflation has eroded the impact of the maximum $200 fine. For example, if the $200
maximum fine is adjusted for an average annual inflation rate of 5%, the maximum penalty
- Page 4
209
Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
of $200 in 1960 is really only $38.74 in today's dollars. Or, put another way, if the $200 fine
set in 1960 had grown with inflation, it would be a $953 fine today.
Inflation is not the only factor weakening conservation enforcement on Reservations.
Criminals are getting more sophisticated. To maintain their effectiveness, state and federal
enforcement measures are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One of the most effective
of the new enforcement tools is the authority to seize and forfeit a poacher's equipment and
vehicle. Like in the area of drug enforcement, taking the tools of the criminal enterprise has
emerged as an important and effective measure in conservation enforcement by federal and
state governments. These same forfeiture powers should be applied to Indian Reservation
conservation enforcement efforts to assist under-funded tribal government conservation
programs.
For these reasons, Red Lake proposes that 18 U.S.C. § 1165 be amended to increase
maximum penalties to a $3,000 fine, or one year imprisonment, or both, and to additionally
vest tribal conservation enforcement programs with the authority to seize and forfeit to their
programs' use all personal property used by the violator to carry out the violation. This
would include forfeiture powers over hunting and fishing as well as all transportation
equipment used in the criminal enterprise.
We believe it may be most politically feasible to include a provision that would
automatically apply the higher of either the new federal penalties we propose or the
neighboring state's penalties for prohibited hunting and fishing on state-administered game
preserves. Since state penalties vary from state to state. Congress could in this way ensure
that penalties applied on Reservations are no less stringent than surrounding state penalties.
SET ASIDE FUNDS TO TRIBES FROM THE FEDERAL FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Tribal governments are finding it increasingly difficult to manage their natural
resource programs. Increasing numbers of people are residing upon and using the
Reservation as populations swell and tribal members return home to live and work. This
has resulted in increased reliance on natural resources for sustenance as well as increased
environmental degradation.
Nevertheless, in recent years BIA funding for natural resources has been declining
in favor of modest increases targeted for human services programs. And what funding does
Page 5
210
Testimony of Red L\ke Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
come through to the tribal government level is sporadic and often project specific. There
is a critical need for Congress to authorize and appropriate stable and consistent levels of
funds specifically targeted for the comprehensive tribal government operation of its natural
resource core management program.
Funding for such a comprehensive program could have little impact on the federal
budget because of the unique revenue collection and distribution mechanisms under the
Dingell- Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts. State and local governments, even the District
of Columbia, now receive a proportional share of funds collected under these Acts from
special taxes levied on the sale of licenses, permits, weapons, ammunition, gear, equipment,
boats, fuel, and related consumer goods used in fishing and hunting activities. These funds
are collected by the federal government and returned to states and local units of government
in proportional shares for fish and wildlife restoration projects.
But while some of the hunting and fishing activities occur on tribal lands, including
those lands over which state and local governments have no jurisdiction or conservation
responsibility, none of these funds are now allocated to tribal governments who do have that
jurisdiction and responsibility. Nothing is allocated to Indian Reservations despite the fact
that all Reservation fish and wildlife recreational activities contribute money to these funds.
There is a strong case to be made, on basic fairness and equity, that tribal conservation and
enforcement programs should get a share of these funds.
In an attachment to this testimony. Red Lake submits proposed amendment language
which would allocate to Indian Tribes a portion of the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-
Robertson Act funds. We strongly support such a measure. However, we ask that in
considering such an amendment, the Subcommittee make every effort to ensure that BIA
officials are not permitted any discretion to reduce fish and wildlife related funding to Tribes
because Tribes obtain Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson funds. Tribes need additional
funds, and that is our objective in seeking the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson
funding. We make this request because we have heard BIA officials view such an
amendment as a way for BIA to redirect BIA fish and wildlife funds into other areas of the
BIA budget. We would oppose all such efforts and ask that you make sure BIA cannot do
so.
Please let us know if we can assist you in developing the legislation, in refining these
proposed amendments, and in securing passage of a bill during this session of Congress. We
sorely need early action on this critical topic. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.
RLF&WOe.TST
0152/07203
Page 6 •
211'
Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs SuBCxsMMirrEE
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
RESERVATION TRESPASS I POACHER AMENDMENT
18 U.S.C. § 1165 (Indian Reservation trespass statute)
18 U.S.C. § 1165 is amended to read as follows:
1 § 1165. Hunting, trapping, or Fishing on Indian Land
2 Whoever, without lawful authority or permission, willfully and knowingly goes upon
3 any land that belongs to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or group and either are held by
4 the United States in trust or are subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the
5 United States, or upon any lands of the United States that are reserved for Indian use, for
6 the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing thereon, or for the removal of game, peltries,
7 or fish therefrom, shall be fined not more than $3G0 $3,000 or imprisoned not more than
8 ninety days one year, or both, and all game, fish, afl4 peltries, vehicles, weapons, gear, and
9 other hunting and fishing equipment in his possession shall be forfeited to the Indian tribal
10 government exercising conservation authority over the Indian land upon which the trespass
11 occurred. The forfeited propertv. or the proceeds therefrom, shall be used bv said tribe in
12 furtherance of its conservation enforcement activities.
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page i
212
Testimony of Red Lmce Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommitteb
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
FEDERAL WILDLIFE ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT
16 U.S.C. § 669 et seq.
Popular Names: the "Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act"
and the "Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act"
16 U.S.C § 669g-l is amended to read as follows:
1 § 669G-1. Payment of funds to and cooperation with Puerto Rico, Guam,
2 American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, an© Virgin
3 Islands, and Amertc^Inpian •tribal governniiniis.
4 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of
5 Agriculture of Puerto Rico, the Governor of Guam, the Governor of American Samoa, the
6 Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and-the Governor of the
7 Virgin Islands, and the governments of Indian tribes, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450bre'). in the
8 conduct of wildlife-restoration projects, as defined in section 669a of this title, and hunter
9 safety programs as provided by section 669g(b) of this title, upon such terms and conditions
10 as he shall deem fair, just and equitable, and is authorized to apportion to Puerto Rico,
1 1 Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, efid-the
12 Virgin Islands, and said tribal governments, out of the money available for apportionment
13 under this chapter, such sums as he shall determine, not exceeding for Puerto Rico one-half
14 of 1 per centum, for Guam one-sixth of 1 per centum, for American Samoa one-sixth of one
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page 2
213
TESTiMOhfY OF Red Lake CHAmNUN Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
1 per centum, for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands one-sixth of 1 per
2 centum, and for the Virgin Islands one-sixth of 1 per centum, and for the combined total of
3 all of said tribal governments 2-and-one-quarter per centum, of the total amount
4 apportioned, in any one year, but the Secretary shall in no event require any of said
5 cooperating agencies to pay an amount which will exceed 25 per centum of the cost of any
6 project, nor require any of said tribal governments to pay any amount toward the cost of any
7 project. Any unexpended or unobligated balance of any apportionment made pursuant to
8 this section shall be available for expenditure in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
9 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,-e^the Virgin Islands, or by said tribal
10 governments, as the case may be, in the succeeding year, on any approved project, and if
1 1 unexpended or unobligated at the end of such year is authorized to be made available for
12 expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of the Migratory
13 Bird Conservation Act [16 U.S.C.A. § 715 et seq.].
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page 3
214
TESTIMO^fY OF Red Lake Chairman Gerauj F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs SUBCOMMirrEE
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
FEDERAL FISH ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT
16 U.S.C. § 777 et seq.
Popular Names: the "Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act",
the "Fish Restoration Management Projects Act",
and the "Dingell- Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act"
16 U.S.C § 777k is amended to read as follows:
1 § 777k. Payment of funds to and cooperation with Puerto Rico, District of
2 CoLUMBU, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Maruna
3 Islands, and Virgin Islands, MO-AMiaaiCAN CNDW|tmip, governments.
4 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of
5 Agriculture of Puerto Rico, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Guam,
6 the Governor of American Samoa, the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern
7 Mariana Islands, efid-the Governor of the Virgin Islands, and the governments of Indian
8 tribes, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450bfe'). in the conduct of fish restoration and management
9 projects, as defined in section 777a of this title, upon such terms and conditions as he shall
10 deem fair, just and equitable, and is authorized to apportion to Puerto Rico, the District of
1 1 Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
12 and— the Virgin Islands, and said tribal governments, out of the money available for
1 3 apportionment under this chapter, such sums as he shall determine, not exceeding for Puerto
14 Rico 1 per centum, for the District of Columbia one-third of 1 per centum, for Guam one-
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page 4
215
Testimony of Red Uke Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
1 third of 1 per centum, for American Samoa one-third of 1 per centum, for the
2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands one-third of 1 per centum, an4-for the
3 Virgin Islands one-third of 1 per centum, and for the combined total of all of said tribal
4 governments 2-and-one-quarter per centum, of the total amount apportioned in any one
5 year, but the Secretary shall in no event require any of said cooperating agencies to pay an
6 amount which will exceed 25 per centum of the cost of any project nor require any of said
7 tribal governments to pay any amount toward the cost of any project. Any unexpended or
8 unobligated balance of any apportionment made pursuant to this section shall be available
9 for expenditure in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the
10 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,-ef-the Virgin Islands, or by said tribal
1 1 governments, as the case may be, in the succeeding year, on any approved projects, and if
12 unexpended or unobligated at the end of such year is authorized to be made available for
13 expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying on the research program of the Fish
14 and Wildlife Service in respect to fish of material value for sport or recreation. For
15 purposes of this section, the apportionments made to Indian tribes shall be adjusted
16 equitably so that no tribe shall receive less than one-quarter of 1 per centum nor more than
17 5 per centum of the total amount apportioned to Indian tribes. For purposes of section
18 777e of this chapter, the Secretary may finance up to 100 per centum of the total costs:
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page 5
216
Testimony of Red Lake Chairman Gerald F. Brun, February 18, 1993
Before the House Native American Affairs Subcommittee
Regarding Tribal Fish and Wildlife Conservation Legislation
1 (It of implementing a tribe's comprehensive fish and wildlife resource
2 management plan, and
3 (21 of a tribe's fish restoration and management project approved by the
4 Secretary, and
5 (3) of a tribe's acquisition of lands or interests therein and the construction of
6 structures or facilities.
7 Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 777e. the administrative costs of a tribe charged
8 against programs or projects supported by funds made available under this chapter shall not
9 exceed that tribe's indirect cost rate negotiated with the Office of Inspector General of that
10 tribe's cognizant federal agency.
Conservation Amendments Proposed February 18, 1993 by the Red Lake Nation - Page 6
217
TESTIMONY OF THE PUEBLO OF LAGtJNA
TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Honorable Congressman Bill Richardson, Chairman
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management and Enhancement
Dear Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members:
My name is Harry D. Early and I am Governor of the Pueblo of
Laguna Tribe of New Mexico. Membership within our tribe is
comprised of 7,180 members and our land base consists of
approximately 528,000 acres. Our reservation is located in
northwest New Mexico, with our headquarters in the village of Old
Laguna, which is approximately 45 miles west of Albuquerque.
The Pueblo of Laguna Tribe (Tribe) , like other Indian Tribes
throughout North America, have developed strong ties with
wildlife and other natural components of the universe. Wildlife
resources play an important part of our Tribal culture and
tradition.
Wildlife species such as deer and eagles are represented in
tribal dances to pay homage and give thanks to the Great Spirit
(Creator) who has given these magnificent creatures to the
people. Our clan system is also based on natural components that
occur within this universe. Some clans are named after the sun,
water, eagle, turkey, roadrunner, badger, and antelope. Songs
about deer, butterfly, and other wildlife species are also sung,
again signifying the importance of these resources.
Thus it was only fitting that our Tribe, in June of 1990, adopted
the Laguna Wildlife Conservation Code (Code) which set the stage
for wildlife management on our Reservation. This action was
perhaps one of the most important steps taken by the Tribal
Council in recent history. With the enactment of this Code, we
made a commitment to manage our wildlife resources and further
declared that it is our policy "that all wildlife will be managed
for human enjoyment and welfare, for traditional, cultural and
scientific purposes, and to insure the perpetuation of wildlife."
With the enactment of the Code also came the establishment of the
Laguna Wildlife Conservation Program (Program) which is
responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Code. In
attempting to develop strategies to implement the policies set
forth in the Code, we have come to realize that present funding
levels are not sufficient.
During the time our Code was being drafted and reviewed, we
submitted a funding proposal for the Establishment of the Pueblo
of Laguna Wildlife Management Program in the amount of $196,220.
This funding proposal was included with others as part of the
218
Page 2
Pueblo of Laguna Testimony
House Sub-conunittee on Native American Affairs
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement
March 1, 1993
initiative sponsored in Fiscal Year 1990 by the Native American
Fish and Wildlife Society. This initiative resulted in the
submission of a total funding package to the U.S. Congress.
Unfortunately, our proposal was not funded. However, that did
not prevent us with moving ahead with our plan to initiate a
wildlife management program. In June of 1990, our Tribal Council
allocated $58,000 to establish the first tribal wildlife program
and thus began our first official effort to address our fishery
and wildlife management needs.
Despite our limited funding and the fact that we have only two
Wildlife Conservation Officers to patrol 528,000 acres, we have
made great strides in our efforts to curtail illegal hunting
activities. We have also made excellent progress in re-
establishing our native big game populations. We have recently
transplanted pronghorn antelope to augment an existing herd in an
effort to increase productivity. These newly transplanted
antelope need to be protected or our efforts were in vain. We
are also in the process of doing similar transplants with mule
deer. We have also implemented a successful mule deer and elk
hunting program for tribal members. This system is currently
operating under a application/drawing basis as we cannot yet
accommodate all interested hunters. Because of our increasing
elk populations, we are also planning to open the elk hunt to
non-tribal members as well. Because of this hunting program, we
need to expand the collection of biological information so that
sound harvest strategies can be developed.
Prior to transplanting of the pronghorn antelope, we conducted an
extensive state-of-the-art radio telemetry project to determine
home ranges, seasonal use, migration, and critical use areas.
The information is now loaded into a Geographic Information
System (CIS) and we now have established a antelope habitat model
that can be used reservation-wide to determine suitable locations
for additional antelope transplants. So you can see that we are
serious in our attempts to provide effective and efficient
management of our wildlife resources. But our efforts do not
stop at big game management.
It has long been our wish here on our reservation to establish a
permanent water-based recreation facility that would satisfy our
needs in sport fishing. Although we do have repairs pending on
several reservoirs (Paguate Ponds and Seama) with completion
scheduled soon, they will be used primarily for irrigation and
consequently, sport fishing and other water-based activities will
not be available. It would be in our best interest to have a
large reservoir built strictly for water-based recreation
219
Page 3
Pueblo of Laguna Testimony
House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/ Enhancement
March 1, 1993
activities. Since we are located between two major cities
(Grants and Albuquerque being located approximately 20 and 40
miles to the west and east, respectively) , I am sure you can see
the enormous potential we have to benefit economically from
water-based recreation activities including fishing.
Two existing reservoirs that also deserve mention are the Mesita
and New Laguna Reservoirs. Both reservoirs have historically
provided excellent waterfowl habitat and still have enormous
potential as waterfowl reserves but siltation over the past years
has just about filled both reservoirs. The New Laguna Reservoir
once sported a decent recreational warm water fisheries but has
since been reduced to a bog because of siltation. The earthen
spillway has also been breached in an effort to remove the silt
but to no avail. Downstream agriculture uses for farming have
also suffered due to the lack of irrigation water.
The Rio San Jose was once touted as a good quality fishery but
due to upstream water quality degradation and siltation of the
majority of the stream, the fishery has been seriously degraded
and is almost non-existent.
As you can see from this short synopsis of our surface water
situation, we are in dire need of assistance to remedy this
situation. Mr. Chairman, being from New Mexico and being
familiar with our Reservation, I am sure you can relate to our
concern for our lack of ability to store water. As you know,
water is the "lifeblood" of our Pueblo people.
Another item I would like to bring to your attention is the
inequity in federal funding that appears to be prevalent not only
with our Tribe but throughout Indian country as a whole.
Direct federal funding has been non-existent although the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) has contributed matching funding for
winter big game aerial surveys. However, this came to a halt
this past winter and we funded our own aerial survey. Since then,
we have been unsuccessful in obtaining any federal funding from
the BIA. Fortunately though, we have been able to receive
technical assistance from the BIA Albuquerque Area Office
Wildlife and Fishery Biologist's. However, they are also
responsible for coordinating wildlife management activities on 22
other Indian reservations in Southern Colorado and New Mexico.
Not only are they stretched pretty thin but these job
responsibilities are proposed to be shifted to the local BIA
agencies under the proposed BIA Reorganization Plan. However,
we are unaware of any plan by the Agency to fund these positions.
220
Page 4
Pueblo of Laguna Testimony
House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/ Enhancement
March 1, 1993
As you may also be aware, the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs, more commonly known as the Pittman-
Robertson/Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts (Acts) , provide
federal funds derived through various excise taxes on sport
fishing and hunting equipment and motor boat fuel, to the states
and territories of the United States. These are apportioned
annually through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on
formulae that include land and surface water acreage, number of
permits sold and population. The territories, as we understand,
receive a set percentage each year.
In 1992, records indicate that the State of New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish received $2,802,800 for Wildlife Restoration,
$279,000 for Hunter Education, and $3,636,284 for Sport Fish
Restoration. This amounts to a grand total of $6,764,665
apportioned under these Acts to the New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish. In 1992, a total of $353,400,000 was apportioned
nation-wide and to the territories for fishery and wildlife
enhancement. In the meantime, our tribe had to use its own
financial resources to manage its wildlife resources, including
species that are both migratory and resident.
We, as well as other tribes statewide, are not eligible for any
of this funding because the language of the Acts limit
participation to states and territories only. We are of the
opinion that this is discriminatory and unequitable since our
tribal members pay this same excise tax when they purchase
taxable sporting equipment. To further illustrate this inequity,
the territory of Guam, whose land base is 135,680 acres, received
$927,000 in 1992. In comparison, our land base totals 528,000
acres (five times greater than Guam) and we did not receive one
cent of these federal aid dollars. Because of our decreasing
tribal revenues we could only allocate tribal dollars in the
amount $85,000 in the same year.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee, I am sure you will
agree that we have done a commendable job despite our limited
financial resources. It is our opinion that it would be in our
best interest and in line with "true tribal self-government" if
we were able to establish our own tribal in-house capabilities to
manage our fishery and wildlife resources. By establish our own
tribal staff, only then can we begin to manage our resources from
a "true tribal perspective." It is our estimation that it would
require funding in the amount of $344,000 to begin addressing
these needs. We certainly do hope that you will be able to
assist us in this regard and would be happy to provide you with
the details of this funding requirement.
221
Page 5
Pueblo of Laguna Testimony
House Sub-coitvmittee on Native American Affairs
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/ Enhancement
March 1, 1993
In an effort to begin to address some of our problems, I would
like to respectfully present some recommendations for the Sub-
committees consideration.
1. Direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fulfill their trust
responsibility in fishery and wildlife management and direct
more dollars for this effort.
2. Direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make available
a set amount of the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson
Administrative Funds and the Reverted Funds for Tribal
fishery and wildlife programs and projects.
3. Work with Congress to amend the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-
Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts to allow full tribal
participation in funding of fishery and wildlife projects.
4 . Work with Congress and the Tribes to draft and introduce a
Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act that will
legislatively mandate and guarantee Tribal Governments full
participation in management of fisheries and wildlife
resources including adequate funding to rectify the budget
shortfalls.
5. Consider the option of having the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service be the primary agency to provide technical
assistance to Tribes. As you know, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services' mission is 100 percent fishery and
wildlife management oriented. Consequently, one hundred
percent of their funding and effort is allocated for that
purpose. On the other hand, we find the BIA's mission to be
"complex" in that it deals with a multitude of programs
including education, economic development, roads, law
enforcement, social services, forestry, range, water rights,
and archaeology, to name a few. These individual programs
must compete with one another for funding and unfortunately,
fishery and wildlife resource management programs are
usually under-funded. In our tribal situation, we have
received no direct BIA funding.
6. Provide financial assistance to establish a new reservoir
for water-based recreation with emphasis on sport fishing
and to restore our valuable wetlands at Mesita and New
Laguna Reservoirs.
7. Seriously consider funding, on an annual basis, our Pueblo
of Laguna Wildlife Conservation Program, as requested.
68-141 - 93 - 8
222
Page 6
Pueblo of Laguna Testimony
House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs
Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/ Enhancement
March 1, 1993
If you require additional information regarding any of the items
presented, I will be happy to provide you with full details at
your request.
In closing, the Pueblo of Laguna extends a sincere thanks to you
Mr. Chairman and the Distinguished Members of your committee for
allowing us the opportunity to submit written testimony. We wish
you the best of luck with all your duties and sincerely hope that
you will assist not only our Tribe but all Tribes nation-wide.
We will ask that the Great Spirit guide you and give you the
strength you need to work on behalf of all your constituents.
Keeping in line with our well known "Pueblo hospitality", we
invite you all to visit our Pueblo someday. Mr. Chairman, we
would especially like for you to come visit with our Tribal
Council someday soon. Thank you!
223
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
Resolution No. 09-93
At a duly called meeting of the Pueblo of Laguna Council
held on the 6^ '^'^ day of K^Circh 1993, the following
resolution was adopted.
WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna is concerned about the
efficient and effective management of its fishery and wildlife
resources; and
WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna has enacted wildlife codes
and regulations to ensure that their resources are managed
properly; and
WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna has totally funded its
Wildlife Conservation Program, without financial assistance
from any other governmental, state, or private source; and
WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna desires that the Congress of
the United States make adequate funding available for the
Pueblo and other tribes for the establishment and maintenance
of sound tribal fishery and wildlife management programs; and
WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna supports the efforts of the
House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee
on Natural Resources in its mission to provide adequate support
to tribes in the area of fishery and wildlife management and
enhancement.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of
Laguna hereby submits written testimony on behalf of support to
tribes in the area of fishery and wildlife management and
enhancement.
224
Resolution No. Q" 93
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of Laguna requests
the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee on
Natural Resources to consider our recommendations.
feovet'n
ATTEST:
liiiJi
Councxlman
ribal Secretary (Acting)
225
Resolution No. 09-93
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was enacted upon by the Council of
the Pueblo of Laguna on the OC^^Q day of |V\ (XrcK , 1993, by
a vote of t Q for, \m opposed, Q) abstaining, at a duly
called meeting at which a quorum of the Pueblo Council was
present.
Governor
ATTEST:
bcca^UL
^y'oT^^i^l?. 2y7^ii/.^
afcting
Tribal Secretary
226
WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 140115
DUCKWATER, NV 89314-0115
TELEPHONE/FACSIMILE: (702) 863-0332
^s^te?;:
February 18, 1993
To: House of Representative
Committee on National Resources
Sub-Committee
Native American Affairs
From: Western Shoshone Wildlife S. Plant Resource Commission
Subject: Management of Wildlife and etc.
Management problems of fishery and wildlife conservation are as varied
and as changing as the habitats themselves. They depend on various kinds of
land use and on human population pressure. Basically, the role of wildlife
management is to keep animal populations optimal, diversified, and hannonized
with the environment in order to satisfy the needs of man. These needs are
economic, recreational, scientific, educational, social. A sound management
policy also requires some basic conservation concepts, including ecological
and biological considerations and a respect for native plants and animals,
which should always have priority over exotic species. The development and
application of management measures to obtain the greatest sustained public
benefit from wildlife, or any other natural resource, should never be allowed
to go so far as to threaten a species or subspecies with extinction.
Wildlife management includes restoring, protecting, conserving, and
maintaining animal populations. All these stages require successful co-
operation with the environment, a long-term, ecologically based policy, and
synchronization with other kinds of land use within and outside the area
involved. No management can ever be successful if it is not based on biolog-
ical research.
Modern wildlife management must function by planning ahead, foreseeing
the future's tremendous human pressure on habitat and wild animals. It can
draw a great deal from numerous human mistakes and land misuse during past
centuries to reduce as far as possible man's detrimental impact on the en-
vironment and wildlife. Much of the damage done to wildlife and its habitats
during past centuries is irreparable. Nevertheless management measures
should include environmental restorations designed to put back the natural
interactions that lead to wildlife fertility in a healthy landscape.
227
MANAGEMENT 5. CONTROL OF SHOSHONE RESOURCES ARE:
1 . Trapping
2. Hunting
3. Fishing
4. Gathering (plants and pinuts)
5 . Mustangs
6. Wildlife Reserves
7. Water Use/Rights
8. Seeding/Native Grass and Trees
Page 2
Sincerely Yours,
Allen Moss
Chairman, WSWPRC
228
MAJOR CONCERNS OF TTIE WESTERN SHOSHONE NATION
1 . 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley is still valid.
2. Management and control of Western Shoshone resources:
Trapping
■ Hunting
■ Fishing
• Gathering Rights
■ Mustangs
- Wildlife Refuges
- Water Rights/Water Use
- Land
- Plants
- Other
3. Western Shoshone interests:
- Maximum Land Retention
- Ranching Operations/
Livestock Grazing
- Farming Operations
- Mining
- Oil & Gas Exploration
- Geothermal
- Water Rights/Water Use
- Leasing
- Jurisdiction
- Other
- Smoke Shops/Truck Stops
- Private Enterprises
- Tribal Enterprises
- Royalties
- Taxation
- Monetary Distribution
- Culture/Language/Traditions
- Religious & Sacred Areas
(Protection and Control)
- Education
- Passports
4. Environmental issues:
- High level nuclear waste dump/transportation routes
- Nuclear testing
- Rights-of-way for railroads and roads
- Contamination of water and air
- Hazardous waste and products
- Air space/overflights
- Telephone/telegraph
- Transmission lines
- Other
5. Since time immemorial, the Western Shoshone People continue to live on their nation's
homelands.
6. Western Shoshone issues require Western Shoshone participation and determination to
put together our best possible comprehensive legislative package.
229
Western Shoshone Wildlife and Plant Resource Code
Enacted October 3, 1987
Preambl e :
A Code adopted by the Western Shoshone Nation to protect the wildlife
and plant resources subject to its jurisdiction and the natural beauty
of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands.
Whereas, from time immemorial the Western Shoshone Nation has practiced
conservation to protect the invaluable wildlife and plant resources
subject to its jurisdiction from waste and excessive exploitation, and
has been proud of the great natural beauty of its ancestral lands, and
Whereas, from time immemorial the Western Shoshone Nation has exercised
sovereignty over its citizens and territory, and,
Whereas, the United States of America, by the Treaty of Ruby Valley, 18
Stat. 689, ratified on October 21, 1869, and recognized the sovereignty
and aborigional rights of the Western Shoshone Nation,
Now, Therefore , the Western Shoshone National Council hereby adopts this
Code to protect the wildlife and plant resources within the jurisdiction
of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands.
A. Jurisdiction.
This Code shall be applicable to all persons exercising or purporting
to exercise the hunting , fishing, trapping, or gathering rights
reserved to the Western Shoshone Nation by treaty and arising out of
aborigional use and occupancy within the boundaries of the Western
Shoshone ancestral territory.
B. The Western Shoshone Wildlife cind Plant Resource Comnission.
1. Establishment and Purpose.
The Western Shoshone Wildlife and Plant Resource Commission
(hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") is hereby
established for the purpose of implementing and enforcing this
Code . The Commission shall have authority to implement this
Code by appropriate regulations.
2. Duties of the Commission.
The Commission is directed to:
(A) to enforce the provisions of this Code;
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 1
230
(B) to report on the operations of the Conunission to the Western
Shoshone National Council (herein referred to as the
"National Council");
(C) to plan and execute programs and activities for the
conservation and enhancement of the wildlife and plant
resources, including the management of animals and plants
injurious to the communities, livestock and crops;
(D) to design, implement and supervise a plan for control,
disposition, elimination and prevention of plant and animal
diseases ;
(E) to coordinate with the National Council, community leaders and
individuals to formulate a plan to further develop the
wildlife resources;
(F) to develop a plan of public education and public relations,
informing the community of the Commission's goals and
objectives;
(G) to prepare written materials intended to keep the public
informed of the applicable laws;
(H) to judiciously recommend to the National Council expenditures
necessary to the development of wildlife resource potential;
(I) to report bite cases, outbreaks of diseases, potential health
problems and other significant events to the United
States Public Health Service and other agencies as necessary;
(J) to represent the Western Shoshone Nation at state wide or
regional wildlife planning meetings;
(K) to seek federal, state and local funds and technical
assistance in the further development of the Western Shoshone
wildlife programs;
(L) to render emergency assistance to the federal or state law
enforcement officials, or to individuals needing emergency
medical care or who risk extreme exposure to the natural
elements;
(M) to design, implement and supervise a plan for control,
disposition or elimination of animals injurious to the
wildlife resources of the Western Shoshone Nation;
(N) to maintain a system of recording and preserving all items or
wildlife seized in the course of Commission duties; and,
(O) to maintain fiscal records of the Commission's income and
expenditure.
3. Enforcement Authority.
(A) The Commission shall exercise enforcement authority through
special conservation officers or game protectors it may
commission. Such conservation officers or game protectors
may issue citations for violations of this Code & Regulations
and/or take into custody any citizen of the Western Shoshone
Nation without warrant for violation of the same after first
having considered:
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS
231
1. Whether the person has identified himself satusf actorily;
2. Whether detention appears reasonably necessary to prevent
imminent bodily harm to himself, to another, to property,
or breach the peace;
3. Whether the person is a local resident so as to provide
reasonable assurance of his or her appearence before the
Western Shoshone Nation Tribal court, or whether there is
substantial liklihood that he will refuse to respond to the
citation; and
4. Whether the person has previously failed to appear in
response to a citation issued pursuant to this section or
other lawful process of the Western Shoshone Nation.
(B) Any conservation officer or game protector may search without
warrant any conveyance, vehicle, game bag, game basket, game
coat or other receptacle for game animals, game birds or fish,
or any package, box, tent, camp or other similar place which
he has reason to believe containes evidence of violations of
thic Code & Regulations pertaining to hunting and fishing.
(C) Any conservation officer or game protector may seize without
warrant all game animals, game birds, fish or parts thereof
taken, killed, transported or possessed contrary to this Code
& Regulations; and any dog, gun, vehicle, trap, net, seine,
decoy, bait, boat, light, or other device used in hunting,
fishing or trapping, or held with intent to be used for
purposes violating this Code & Regulations
(D)
C. Regulation.
1. CoimBission Empowered to Regulate.
The Commission shall promulgate such regulations as it deems
proper and necessary to carry out the policy of the Western
Shoshone Nation with respect to hunting, fishing, trapping,
gathering, and all other activities considered in this Code
within the Western Shoshone National jurisdiction. Such
regulation nay establish closed and open seasons, closed
areas, bag and catch limits, gear restriction, permit
requirements, and any other provisions that the Commission
deems necessary to carry out the policies and provisions of
this code.
2. Review By the National Council.
The National Council shall take all actions necessary to implement
the provisions of this Code and may review and may amend all
regulations of the Commission by resolution.
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 3
232
3. Notice of Regulations.
Proposed regulations, other than emergency regulations, shall be
communicated to the public at least ten (10) days prior to
enactment. All regulations promulgated by the Commission shall be
communicated to the public as widely as is necessary,
including providing information with respect to such newspaper,
broadcast media, and any other media that are likely to bring
such news to the attention of the general public, and shall make
copies of such regulations available to all persons.
4. Effective Date of Regulations.
Regulations shall become effective upon promulgation by the
Commission .
5. Emergency Regulations.
The Commission may promulgate emergency regulations governing
hunting, fishing, trapping, or gathering within the Western
Shoshone National jurisdiction but no such regulation shall
remain in effect longer than fifteen (15) days.
6. Noncompliance with Regulations.
Failure to comply with regulations properly promulgated under this
section shall be a violation of this Code.
D. Proof of Identity.
1. Identification Cards.
Any person in any activity governed or permitted by this Code
shall have on his or her person any license , permit,
identification card, or other document required by regulations
adopted pursuant to this statute while engaged in any such
activity.
E. Prohibited Acts.
1. Hunting in Violation of Closed Seasons, Bag Limits, or Closed
Areas.
It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, trap, or fish during
the respective closed seasons thereof. It also shall be
unlawful for any person to kill, take, or catch any species of
birds, animals, or fish in excess of the number fixed as the bag
limit. It also shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, fish, or
trap for any birds, fish or animals within the boundaries of any
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 4
233
closed area.
2. Hunting While Intoxicated.
It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with firearms while
under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
3. Wasting Wildlife
It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any animal or any
person to permit any animal or any part of it needlessly to go to
waste after killing it. Trophy hunting is prohibited.
4. Obstructing Law Officers
It shall be unlawful for any member to resist or obstruct any
Conservation Officer or other duly authorized tribal law
enforcement officer or other peace officer in the discharge of
his duty while enforcing the provisions of this statute or
other regulations promulgated under this statue.
5. Interference with Geuse Control Signs
It shall be unlawful for any person to destroy, tear down, shoot
at, deface or erase any printed matter or signs placed or posted
by or under the instructions of the Fish and Game Commission to
assist in the enforcement of tribal hunting and fishing
regulations.
F. Enforcement
1. Violations of this Code, regulations made pursuant to this Code,
or conditions of permits given pursuant to this Code, shall be
punished by appropriate criminal or civil proceedings in the
Western Shoshone Nation Tribal courts.
2. Any game, fish, pelts, and any hunting, fishing, trapping gear
and any receptacles, vehicles, machinery, dog, or waterborne craft
obtained by, used in, or intended to be used in violation of this
Code may be seized, confiscated, and impounded by Western Shoshone
law enforcement officers and conservation officers.
3. Violators of this Code may have hunting, fishing or gathering
privileges suspended for any length of time deemed appropriate by
the Commission in its regulations.
4 . Western Shoshone law enforcement officers and conservation
officers may inspect all fish and wildlife taken or transported,
and may search without warrant any vehicle, boat, box, outhouse,
hunting camp, game bag, or other package, where there is a
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 5
234
reasonable belief that fish, game wildlife or part thereof is
possessed in violation of this Code.
5. Property seized or confiscated pursuant to this Code may be
forfeited and given away or sold at the discretion of the
adjudicating Western Shoshone Nation Tribal court, after proper
notice of hearing on action to forfeit has been given to known
owners, and a hearing has been held.
(A) Notice of action to forfeit shall be given by summons to
owners .
(B) A hearing on action to forfeit shall be held fifteen (15)
days after actual service of summons or last date of
publication.
5. In the event that the court orders forfeiture of any articles
seized, such articles shall be turned over to the Western
Shoshone National Council for the use and benifit of the Western
Shoshone Nation. If any articles are not declared forfieted by
order of the court , they shall be returned to the owner after
the case has been concluded and the fines paid, if any.
6. The court may also, upon a showing of probable cause by a sworn
statement of a conservation officer or game protector, issue a
search warrant and direct the search to be made in any place
wherein it is allegedthat any game animal, game bird, or fish, or
any part thereof taken or in possession contrary to this Code &
Regulations, is consealed or illegally kept. Such warrant shall
authorize the search of any building, enclosures of vehicles, and
any appartment, chest, box, locker, crate, basket, package, or
other receptacle to be opened and the contents thereof to be
searched provided that the scope of the warrant is limited the
Western Shoshone Nation's treaty hunting area boundaries.
G. Penalty
Any person who shall violate the provision of this Code or any
regulation properly promulgated pursuant to it may be guilty of an
offense, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to
confinement for not more that (3) months or to pay a fine of not
more that $300.00, or both, with costs.
H. Revolving Fund ^
All fees collected by the Commission or fines exacted as punishment
shall be placed in a fund which may be used at the direction of the
National Council for Commission operating costs. The Commission
shall give the National Council an accounting of such funds on
demand .
WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 6
I
235
WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 140115
DUCKWATCR, NV 89314-0115
TELEPHONE/FACSIMILE: (702) 863-0332
VESTERN SHOSHONE WILDLIFE & PLANT RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MANAGEMENT OF WILD HORSES
INTRODUCriCN
rhe wild -ustar.gs, long a svTniDol of the vanishing west, has provided Nevada,
indeed t-^ie Nacicn, wit-'-i many of the conundrums connected with preserving natural
rescurces in the face of growing uroanization and multi-use of Western lands.
In Nevada, the wild horses became a protected group after a long emotional battle
led by "Wild Horse Annie" in 19 — . Ftanchers were prohibited frcm trapping or
snooting the mustangs they considered a nuisance as they grazed grasslands
intended fcr cattle or lano production.
The long term rasult of this protection has left the wild horses worse off than
oefcre. Their freedotn to roam has been protected, but that freedom now means
freedom to die frcm starvation or thirst as no successful range management
prccram has been instituted to support them.
The Bureau of Land Managanent has struggled to meet the intent of the law, but
nas found that bureaucratic design and methods based upon legislation designed on
tne £ast Cost is not compatible with the natural forces at play in the high
mountain deserts of Nevada.
Talk about tad stuff
tad genetics , cost over runs , etc
PURPOSE
It has been stated that the United States Government stewardship in regard to
r^tive Americans has gone through five official phases: kill them off, train
tnem, adopt than, relocate them, forget them.
Treatment of wild horses can be equated to the above: shoot them, primary
training program, adopt a horse program, relocate through helicopter round-
ups, leave them to starve and desicate.
Given this e.Kperience , the
institute a ten year Wild Horse Management plan that will
-proposes to
236
1. overccme past failures;
2. rely on natural forces to upgrade stock;
3. restore a balance of reason to dis-
cussion of the issue;
4. provide a mechanism of self support,
thereby lessening demands on public
budget .
METHOD
Years One and Two
Reducing the herds to a size that can co-exist with the Icuid will be tha mam i
focus of stage one. Determination of natural foliage, available water, demands \
cf cattle/sheep ranching, other wildlife constraints will be variable factors.
In the designated range areas for reduction of wild horses, good water holes with
easy access will be determined by on-site survey. Water entrapment will be used
to attract the stock into the area for round up by helicopter, dirt bike, an
ccnventicnal horse tack methods .
Transportation of horses out of the area will be by pull trailers, gooseneck and
regular diesel livestock trucks/trailers. Shipping fever shots will be
administered.
Horse herds to be left at designated areas will be upgraded to good stock by
culling by color, size, breed and configuration and by introduction of high
powered stallions.
Years Three and Four
Permanent water hole corrals will be built and proper stock water tanks and
watering troughs Installed. Permanent feed systans will also be devised.
Reduction of herds would continue as range dictates. Culling of surplus stock
would continue according to age, size, color and sex. Colored horses would be
held back to establish colored horse herds. This could include a herd of stickly
Indian Pinto ponies. Both colored horses and Pintos are in demand.
By keeping back all big boned mares and fillies and turning out draft horse
stallions, a herd for third world meat consumption could be established.
The same process could be used to create a herd of mules, by introducing burros
to one herd.
Years Four and Five
Annual reduction of base herds would begin to take place. Young stallions (2-
3 years) would be gelded; cripples and standard colors culled.
Sales of horses would begin to support management costs.
237
Years Slx through Ten
Range developnent should be in operation. Basic herd sizes are established.
/ijinual round-up reduction of horse herds will be in place.
Other Management Techniques
Vaccination
As long as horse herds are left on their own natural range above congested
elevations, Nafare has provided a disease free environnient. It is the
incarceration in storage facilities and exposure to crowded environments that
contaminates.
Vaccinations will be administered to stock moved into wild horse sanctuary or in
situations required for transport.
Hoof Tri.TiTU.ng
By having norses in their own habitat, again Mother Nature will resolve the
problem. Running on the natural terrain will keep hooves and legs in top shape
without application of artificial methods.
Casturization
This will be done to all 2 and 3 year olds during the annual trapping, depending
on sales and range dictates to be determined cinnually.
Wild Horse Sanctuary
It is proposed that the majority of wild horse management will be perforroed on
high altitude range lands away frcm population centers. It is edso proposed that
one range land sanctuary be located with easy access to the more populated areas
as an education center.
Planned field trips for all ages of school children could provide not only
information and appreciation for the horses themselves, but at a secondary level,
through history and government classes, provoke discussion and information about
such topics as the Taylor Grazing Act, responsibilities and constraints of the
Bureau of Land Management, and long term implications of the Mustang Protection
Act.
This facility '.ould also be open to the general public, providing not only an
additional tourist attraction, but again, another forum fron which to impart
visual as well as factual information. Only be having a well informed public can
t.".e issues of management in a changing world be discussed in a manner that
fosters t.he best results for all.
238
Administration
This program shall be part of the Division of Shoshone Nation Natural Resources.
The Shoshone Nation will contract with Kahnee, Inc. to develop, institute, and
manage the above proaram. Kahnee, Inc. (KI) shall maintain a full year
managenent team of persons who will also recruit and train support staff for
each heard area as it is established. These wranglers will be primarily drawn
from the scattered Shoshone ccmunities ttiroughout Nevada or frcm prison and D(JI
units where outdoor, cowooy work is an appropriate alternative to jail time.
CSee Appendix for proposed staffing pattern).
Results/Benefits
It IS envisioned that by establishing and maintaining small, healthy herds that
t.he key issues of this controversy will be addressed.
The American public will be served in its desire to protect and sustain bands of
wild horses. These bands, however, will not be subjected to the slow death they
currently suffer through inbreeding, lack of forage and water, and malicious
attacks by vandals. The species itself will be strengthened and better able to
enjoy survival in natural surroundings.
The cattlanen, the sheepherder, and now the military (an expanding user of the
Nevada rangeland) will also be served by this management plan. Horse herds, by
virtue of assured water and feed sources, will not need to invade other grazing
areas for survival. Should a herd stray frcm its designated territory, anyone so
impacted will have a permanent, "ready-to-go" crew, familiar with both the
terrain and the herd, that can humanely move than back to where they should be.
The Nevada public will be served with an additional education center and a
positive approach to a problem that has stymied and drained time and energy fron
all sectors. The problems of canpeting land use, of changing public values, and
of shifting economic forces are not unique to Nevada, yet the wild horse
management issue is specifically in its area, needing local resolution, not
application designs frcm Metro areas that do not experience this unique
cccnbination of factors.
The Shoshone Nation, in meeting its responsibility to future generations by
prccnoting and practicing conservation and stewardship of the natural resources of
Its territory, will also be stimulating avenues of employment for its people,
creating another tourism asset for the region, and demonstrating a cost effective
method of resource management.
And sonewhere, looking into a vast landscape unfettered with architectural
creations, a small child will be inspired watching a mustang reach for the wind.
239
WESTERN SHOSHONE WILDLIFE & PLANT RESOURCE COMMISSIOH
WILDLIFE PROGRAM
FIRST YEAR BUDGET EXPLANATION
SECTION 1
PERSONNEL:
This section of the Wildlife Program is budgeted for 5 persons. A chief
game warden, a secretary and three game wardens. All positions will
work 100% on program activities.
The Chief Game Warden will: carry out the policies , code & regulations
of the Western Shoshone Wildlife & Plant Resource Commission (WSWPRC);
attend all meetings of the Western Shoshone National Council (WSNC) ,
WSWPRC, / other Tribal, State &
Federal meetings as is necessary. Will manage the wildlife
program for the protection, propagation, restoration, introduction and
maintain public relations to the best of his/her ability, as well as
maintain communication and regular reports to the WSWPRC on the status
of the program, i.e. budget, property assignment, employee management,
patrol scheduling, safety & defence training, incident reports,
judicial, technical recommendations, etc. Act as secretary of the
WSWPRC, without voting power. Salary figure for this position is
appropriate to similar positions with other Tribal organizations.
The secretary will: be responsible for for: maintaining program
administrative, program, and compliance records; document and
communication from the WSNC/WSWPRC; scheduling and revisiting program
activities and work travel; handling program activities; communications
and correspondence. Salary figures for this position is appropriate to
similar positions with other Tribal organizations.
Game Wardens will: enforce with full power and authority the provisions
of the WSWPRC Code £> Regulations; as peace officers for the service of
such legal process, including warrants and subpoenas, as may be required
in the performance of their duties.
Fringe Benefits:
The amount budgeted is for fringe benefits on salary for program staff.
The current fringe benefit rate is 20.62%. The total is based on the
following breakdown: FICA- 7.51%; SUTA- 1.20%; SIIS- .91%; Retirement-
4.00%; Health Insurance- 7.00%.
Consultant & Contract Services:
There are three categories of contract and consultant services. Wildlife
Biologist consultant, bookkeeping services & audit, legal consultant.
Wildlife biologist will study existing and new research data and compile
such technical information for the review of the WSWPRC, under the
direction of the Chief Game Warden.
Bookkeeping & audit will services the financial dealings of the WSWPRC,
and maintain the accuracy of the WSWPRC accounting services.
Legal consultant is necessary in defining the legal uncharted waters of
WSWPRC jurisdiction thereby avoiding legal challenges, litigation,
and/or negotiating remedies and producing recommendations on the
development of applicable regulations, etc..
240
NON-PERSONNEL:
Office space lease/ rental, utilities and janitorial services are
necessary for the constant and effective implementation of the WSWPRC
Code & Regulations; and basing operations of the Wildlife Program.
Rental, lease, and purchase of equipment is key to the ability of the
Wildlife Program, conservation and enforcement of the WSWPRC Code &
Regulations.
Consumable supplies will be used in the maintenance and operation of the
Wildlife Program offices and vehicles.
Telephone, copies and postage are necessary for the timely compilation,
and dissemination of information to various Tribal, State, Federal
entities and the general public, as well as for the internal operation
of the Wildlife Program.
Insurance is necessary to prevent liability and loss of the WSWPRC.
Official Commission travel is for the Chief Game Warden and WSWPRC
Commissioners both in and out of State, as is determined necessary.
WESTERN SHOSHONE WILDLIFE & PLANT RESOURCE COMMISSION
WILDLIFE PROGRAM
FIRST YEAR BUDGET EXPLANATION
SECTION 2
PERSONNEL :
This section requires five animal handlers required to maintain the
safety of the wildlife resource management activities, and implement to
objectives of the wildlife Program. These positions are at a rate
appropriate to other positions within other Tribal organizations.
FRINGE BENEFITS:
The amount budgeted is for fringe benefits on salary for program staff.
The current fringe benefit rate is 20.62%. The total is based on the
following breakdown: PICA- 7.51%; SUTA- 1.20%; SIIS- .91%; Retirement-
4.00%; Health Insurance- 7.00%.
NON- PERSOIOIEL:
Rental, lease and purchase of equipment for the implementation of the
\
I
241
WESTERN SHOSHOKE WILDLIFE & PLANT RESOORCE COMMISSION
WILDLIFE PROGRAM
BUDGET
FY
1993
Section 1- Resource Conservation & Management
I . PERSONNEL
A. Salaries & Wages.
(1) Chief Game Warden
(1) Game Warden
( 1 ) Game Warden
(1) Game Warden
(1) Secretary
20,000.00
13,000.00
18,000.00
18,000.00
16,000.00
Sub Total
B. Fringe Benefits.
PICA 7.51%
SUTA 1.20%
SIIS .91%
Retirement 4.00%
Health Insurance — 7.00%
Consultant & Contract Services.
Consulting Wildlife Biologist
Bookkeeping Services & Audit
Legal Consultant
II. NON- PERSONNEL
A. Office Space.
Lease/ Rental
Utilities
Janitorial Services
Sub Total
$ 90,000.00
6,759.00
1,080.00
819.00
3,600.00
6,300.00
$ 18,558.00
S 28,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
Sub Total
Sub Total
B. Rental, Lease or Purchase of Equipment:.
(3) Desks @ $200.00 Ea .
(5) Chairs @ $60.00 Ea.
(4) File Cabinets @ $150.00 Ea .
(1) Personal Computer W/Periferals
$ 43,000.00
3,500.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
S 6,500.00
$ 600.00
300.00
600.00
5,000.00
242
(1) Typwriter
(1) Self Contained Portable
ID Camera/Lamination Machine
(3) 4WD Trucks W/Extra Tanks @ $18,000.00 Ea.
(3) Camper Shells @ $1,600 Ea.
(3) Field Radios & (i) Base Radio
(3) Tire Chains, Basic Tools & First Aid Kits
Incidentals
C. ConsumsUale Supplies.
Office Supplies
Fuel & Engine Fluids
D. Telephone, Copies & Postage.
Copies
Telephone § $200.00 Per Mo.
Telephone Installation & Deposit
Regular & Bulk Postage
E. Insurance.
300.00
3,500.00
54,000.00
5,400.00
14,200.00
460.00
3,000.00
Sub Total
$ 87,360.00
$ 5,000.00
10,000.00
Sub Total
$ 5,000.00
$ 1,800.00
2,400.00
300.00
500.00
Sub Total $ 5,000.00
Vehicle Insurance
Professional Liability Insurance
Sub Total
F. Official Coomi
ssion Travel.
$ 8,000.00
4,000.00
$ 12,000.00
In State/Local
Out of State
$ 3,000.00
3,000.00
Sub Total
$ 6,000.00
Sub Grand Total $ 273,418.00
243
Section 2- Mustanq & Wildlife Habitat Restoration
I . PERSOin;EL
A. Saleries & Wages.
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Handler
Handler
Handler
Handler
Handler
$ 15,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
Sub Total S 75,000.00
Fringe Benefits.
FICA 7.51%
SUTA 1.20%
SIIS .91%
Retirement 4.00%
Health Insurance — 7.00%
5,632.50
900.00
682.50
3,000.00
5,250.00
Sub Total $ 15,465.00
II. NON-PERSONNEL
A. Rental, Lease or Purchase of Equipnent.
Helicopter Rental & Per diem § $3,325 a day x 10
Trap Fence & Traps (Mustang & Beaver)
Mustang & Elk Stock Transportation Truck
Holding Pen Timber Poles 250 @ $30.00
Breeding Stock
33,250.00
600.00
6,000.00
7,000.00
7,500.00
Sub Total
$54,350.00
B. Consumable Supplies.
Native Grass Seed
Vetrinary Supplies
Feed 600 x $ 2.00 x 60 days
10,000.00
1,000.00
72,000.00
Sub Total $83,000.00
Sub Grand Total $227,815.00
Section 1 Total $273,418.00
Section 2 Total 227,815.00
Greuid Total
$501,233.00
244
Fond Du Lac Reservation
Business Committee
105 University Road,
Cloqueu MN 55720
Phone (218) 879-4593
Fax (218) 879-4146
Chairman
Roben B. Peacock
S cere lary/Tre a surer
Peier J. Defoe
DisL I Councilman
Clifion Rabideaux
DisL II Councilman
Herman Wise
DisL III Councilman
George Dupuis
Executive Director
I. Jean Mulder
March 12, 1993
Honorable Bill Richardson, Chair
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
House Committee on Natural Resources
1522 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6201
Dear Chairman and Honored Committee Members:
As Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, I wish to express my appreciation for this
opportunity to present testimony, regarding the
management and enhancement of Indian Fish and Wildlife
resources, to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs
of the Committee on Natural Resources. The Fond du Lac
Reservation is a sovereignty, created by the 1854 Treaty
of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat, 1109. The Fond du Lac
Band is one of the three Chippewa Bands which retain
specific Treaty rights within the 1854 Ceded Territory of
Minnesota, and is also on of six Bands within the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. We are also a member
Reservation of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission. Our Reservation encompasses 100,000+ acres,
and is located about 2 0 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota.
There are presently some 4,200 Fond du Lac Band Members.
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is
committed to managing, protecting, and enhancing the
natural resources which are a vital part of our culture,
identity, and livelihood. In order to accomplish these
goals we have developed Tribal Programs in Conservation
Enforcement, Natural Resources, Forestry, and
Environmental Management. The Fond du Lac Reservation
has an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) which
provides a set of management goals and an assessment of
the resources and environmental conditions on the
Reservation. We also have a Ceded Territory Conservation
Enforcement Program, and have plans to develop a 1854
Ceded Territory Natural Resources Program. These
Programs have been developed in cooperation with the
United States Government through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
because of its Trust Responsibility.
The Fond du Lac Reservation recommends that, in order to
manage and enhance the natural resources of the Band,
Tribal programs must receive the funding support as
primary recipients, along with State and Federal agencies
under all legislation affecting natural resources and
environmental protection. This will fulfill the Trust
Relationship we have with the U.S. Government.
245
This Trust relationship continues to be essential in order
for Native Americans to manage and enhance fish and wildlife
populations, the habitat they need to survive on, and the
environmental protection to ensure and intact and healthy
ecosystem. The efforts which we undertake directly benefit
more citizens than our own Band Members. Beyond the
management and protection of the natural resources on our
own Reservation, we have expended considerable efforts to
initiate participation in, and support of joint Tribal,
local, State, and Federal natural resource and environmental
projects and programs. In many instances this level of
commitment and support has been significant; especially when
"outside" forces which oppose the protection of natural
resources and the environment have stalled action by other
government agencies. Examples of the natural resource
management efforts undertaken by Fond du Lac will be
presented later in this document, and more specific
recommendations to the Federal government will also be
presented. As in our written testimony and Resolution to
the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, (Attach. A,
January 4, 199 3) we request equitable access to the Federal
Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs
(Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson/Wallop-Breaux) . Our Band
Members have helped support these programs for many years
through the Federal taxes on hunting and fishing equipment,
however we have never had access to these funds for natural
resource enhancement projects.
We also must recommend that if these funds are made
available to Tribal programs that other Federal agencies
should not reduce their support for the programs because of
this. The result would be a net loss in our capabilities to
manage our natural resources. The "Federal Aid" funds are
for specific projects, and do not have the same function as
base program funding from the BIA.
The President should direct OMB and the Department of
Interior to include natural resource add-ons, pay increases,
and COLA'S in Tribal base budgets, without reducing funding
in other Indian Programs. The draft of the National Indian
Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 1993 is a
positive approach to solving many current natural resource
management problems. We support this initiative and will
comment further when the final bill is submitted to
Congress.
There are a number of specific policy and legislative
recommendations within the Report of the Long's Peak Working
Group on National Water Policy America's Waters: A New Era
of Sustainabilitv, December 1992. We wish to expand on some
of the specific recommendations within this report. The
following recommendations will express our views.
FOND DU LAC, R.B.C.-
246
The Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program has been working on
a large FERC Relicensing project on the St. Louis River.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations
and their application and interpretation by FERC have been a
major problem for Tribes and Federal and State resource
agencies. In order to protect the instream flows, and
restore the watershed and wetland ecosystems which have been
adversely impacted by the hydropower system, we recommend
the changes as stated within this report. Specifically, we
will be sending a letter to President Clinton to appoint
FERC Commissioners which are sensitive to Tribal resource
concerns and support equal value protection of ecological
and non-power values. Furthermore, the EPA along with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be able to recommend
and require operational changes of hydropower systems which
affect the water quality, instream flow, and watershed
ecosystems. Funds should be provided by the hydro-power
companies in order for Federal, Tribal, and state resource
agencies to maintain, enhance, and restore the affected
aquatic resources. The FERC should be reformed in order to
reflect the changes suggested here, and in the Report.
These reforms have also been recommended jointly by the
Izaak Walton League and American Rivers.
The 1991 Wetlands Delineation Manual should be revised
according to regional variations and recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences. The restoration and
maintenance of wild rice in its natural environment (not to
be confused with "paddy rice") should also be addressed in
all federal regulations and programs involving wetland
protection and enhancement. Wild rice is a genetically
diverse "wild crop" which is becoming endangered in many
wetland ecosystems.
Our Natural Resource Program is currently working on a large
wetland and wild rice restoration project on the
Reservation. We are also cooperating with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and other Bands on a
Wild Rice Council which is trying to address the issue of
the loss of unique wild rice beds on many lakes and rivers.
We strongly recommend that Tribal (93-638) Natural Resource
Programs should be dealt with as a separate program within
the BIA, and not through the Forestry Program. Furthermore,
the funds for Natural Resource Programs should be allocated
more directly in this same fashion, and more support for
these programs and our environmental needs is also needed.
In order to address the serious concerns we have about the
mercury contamination of the fish from our regional lakes
and rivers, we have conducted extensive research on
assessing the levels of mercury in fish, and initiated a
study of mercury levels in subsistence fishermen. A copy of
our most recent mercury Assessment, Mercurv Concentrations
FOND DU LAC, R.B.C."
247
in Fish from the St. Louis River on and near the Fond du Lac
Reservation. October-1992 , is attached. The information is
proving valuable as it shows the changes in mercury levels
in walleyes throughout much of the watershed, and its
relationship to contaminated sediments and also runoff from
forested watersheds. The current problem is mainly the
ongoing airborne fallout of mercury, which increases mercury
concentrations in game fish by 3% to 5% per year! At this
rate the public will be unable to safely consume these fish
in a matter of years.
Our Natural Resource Program in cooperation with the
University of Minnesota/Duluth is proposing to conduct
ground-breaking research on the means to mitigate for
mercury contamination in aquatic ecosystems to prevent the
uptake of mercury into the food chain and thereby decrease
the mercury levels in game fish. If an economical and safe
way is found to accomplish this, the fish will again be safe
for subsistence use and will also save a multi billion
dollar recreational industry in this region. One problem is
that the funds available in the EPA Region 5, Great Lakes
Program Office are quite inadequate to fund all of the
assessment research needed in the Great Lakes area for the
States and Reservations research proposals. The Si Million
now available should be substantially increased and
mitigation research should become a major focus in order to
clean up these ecosystems and not just continue endless
assessments. Our research proposal to EPA-GLNPO is
attached.
The Fond du Lac Environmental Program is one of the newly
funded "Multi-Media" Tribal environmental programs funded by
the EPA. Although this is a relatively new program is has
greatly expanded our capabilities to address the many
environmental problems on our Reservation. We therefore
urgently request that this entire program be fully funded by
the EPA, and that Native American staff be employed to
oversee this program in the Washington D.C. office. In
addition to this the BIA Environmental Office should meet
the needs of environmental problems on reservations, by
expanding its objectives and by providing meaningful
funding.
The Fond du Lac Community College is a Tribal college which
is jointly funded by the State of Minnesota. The new campus
is now complete and some 650 students attend classes there.
The Community College and the Fond du Lac Reservation are
working on developing an Environmental Institute which would
contract for environmental research and also provide a major
educational role at the college. We will be seeking
assistance in the near future to help with the development
of this concept.
FOND DU LAC, R.B.C.'
248
I again wish to thank the Subcommittee on Native American
Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources for this
opportunity to submit this written testimony. If you staff
have any questions regarding these comments please refer
them to Larry Schwarzkopf, FDL Natural Resources Manager,
(218) 879-4593 ext.55.
Sincerely,
®i^vS^QiS5iS;S:i^
Robert B. Peacock
Chairman
' FOND DU LAC, R.B.C."
249
Fond Du Lac Reservation
Business Committee
(Attachment A)
105 Univcisily Road.
Clo<|uci. MN 55720
Plume ;:iS)S79-'.593
P.i5C218)S79-414fi
i'S!«7»iii-
RobCTi B- Peacock
SecTciary/Trcasurcr
Pclct J- Dcfoc
Dist- I Councitman
Cliflon Rabidcaui
DisL II Councilman
Herman Wise
DisL III Councilman
George Dupuis
Excculive Dircclor
I. Jean Mulder
January 4, 1993
Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs
Attn: Patricia M. Zell or Pete Taylor
838 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman and Honored Committee Members:
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is
actively engaged in the management and enhancement of
natural resources under jurisdiction of the Band. In the
past we were dependent upon the federal government to
provide technical assistance for management purposes.
The Fond du Lac Band wishes to continue the development
of our resource management capabilities. In order to
develop and maintain these capabilities, the Band needs
equitable access to the sources of funds which sustain
State fish and wildlife management programs; the Federal
Aid in Sport Fish & Wildlife Restoration Programs
(Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Robertson/Wallop-Breaux) .
These programs currently are not available for Tribal
management of fish and wildlife resources which is
inequitable and discriminatory in view of the fact that
these programs are financed through taxes on fishing and
hunting equipment and boat fuel which is paid by both
Band members and non-Band members utilizing tribal fish
and wildlife resources.
The Band hereby requests that an equitable mechanism be
established to distribute federal funds to tribal
governments for participation in all federal fish,
wildlife and recreational enhancement programs,
especially the Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Robertson/Wallop-
Breaux, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the
Land and Water Act.
Oyr. request of support Wouid^ assist us .in develppiijg; P<ir'
■ internal management Capabilities', thus protecting 'the'.. : ,
resources that are essential to our well-being.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Peacock
Chairman
250
Fond Du Lac
Business Committee
105 Univcrsilv Ri>.id.
Cli- . MN 55720
!>!u .21S)X79-5593
rax(2ISi879;4i46
Reservation
RESOLUTION t /00<//9Z
The Fond du
of the Fond
enacts the
WHEREAS,
Chairman
Robert n. Peacock
Sccrclary/Trcasurcr
Pclcr J. Defoe
DisL I Councilman
Clifion Rabidcaux
Dist. II Councilman
Herman Wise
DisL III Councilman
George Dupuis
Executive Director
I. Jean Mulder
WHEREAS ,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS ,
WHEREAS ,
Lac Reservation Business Committee, on behalf
du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, hereby
following Resolution:
the Fond du Lac Reservation is a Sovereignty,
created by the Treaty of September 30, 1854
10 Stat. 1109, as the perpetual home of the
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
which possesses the inherent jurisdiction and
authority to exercise regulatory control
within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac
Reservation, and
it is the sovereign obligation of the Fond du
Lac Reservation Business Committee, as the
Governing Body of the Fond du Lac Band, under
the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C.
section 461 et seq. , and in accordance with
the Indian Self Determination Act, 25 U.S.C.
section 450 et seq. , to assume
responsibilities of Self-Goverranent, and
the Fond du Lac Band wishes to exercise its
jurisdiction over the management of fish,
wildlife, and recreation resources within the
reservation boundaries by developing new
and/or expanding upon existing professional
management capabilities; and
the Fond du Lac Band has learned of the
existence of federal fish and wildlife
enhancement funding opportunities through the
Federal Aid in Sport Fish & Wildlife
Restoration Programs (Dingell-Johnson/Pittman
Robertson/Wallop-Breaux) , and further
understands that these programs currently are
not available for Tribal management of fish
^nd^wildlife r.e^o.urces which, is inequitable.....
and discrlntlriatdry-j-'and ■■ ' 't' ;",'' V '•>•-■■.•■. "''.".*
these programs are financed through taxes on
fishing and. hunting equipment and boat fuel
which is' paid by both Band members and non-
Band members utilizing tribal fish and
wildlife resources;, cind
WHEREAS, the Fond du Lac Band holds beneficial title
to the resources on 100,000 acres of land
providing opportunities for religious,
subsistence, recreational, and commercial
activities for Tribal members and visitors;
and
251
RESOLUTION # / 00¥ /^2>
WHEREAS, the Fond du Lac Band has developed
management projects that will enhance the
fish and wildlife populations of the Fond du
Lac Reservation, and the recreational and
subsistence uses for the reservation
residents and visitors.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Fond du Lac
Reservation Business Committee hereby requests that the
federal funding available to State fish and wildlife
programs be made available to tribal governments to
conduct fish and wildlife management activities; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Fond du Lac Reservation
Business Committee requests than an equitable mechanism
be established to distribute federal funds to tribal
governments for participation in all federal fish,
wildlife, and recreation enhancement programs, especially
the Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Robertson/Wallop-Breaux,
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the Land
and Water Act, etc.; and,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Fond du Lac Reservation
Business Committee supports the Native American Fish &
Wildlife Society in its efforts to provide technical
services to tribal governments in the development of
sound professional fish and wildlife and recreation
initiatives.
We do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly presented and enacted upon by a vote of "S for,
O against, a quorum of V being present at a
Special Meeting of _the Fond du Lac Reservation Business
Committee held on (J^OUCuei^ S , 1993, at the Fond du Lac
Reservation Business Commiftee offices in Cloquet,
Minnesota.
Robert B. Peacock rChainnan
FOND DU LAC, R.B.C.'
252
Report on the St. Louis River Water Resources Project
Title: MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN RSH FROM THE ST. LOUIS RIVER ON
AND NEAR THE FOND DU LAC INDIAN RESERVATION
by
J. A. Sorensen, G. E. Glass. K. W. Schmidt, and G. R. Rapp, Jr.
Archaeometry Laboratory
University of Minnesota, Duluth
10 University Drive
Duluth. MN 55812-2496
October 1992
Prepared for
Larry Schwarzkopf, Biologist, with the Natural Resource Department of the Fond du Lac
Indian Reservation; Cloquet, MN
253
Mercury Concentrations in Fish from the St. Louis River on and near the Fond Du Lac
Indian Reservation
Introduction
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has listed separate advisories for three main
segments of the St. Louis River (above Qoquet, below Qoquet, and below Fond du Lac) in
the May 1992 Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory (MDH, 1992). The upper two sections
of the river are the most relevant to the concerns of the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation
(FDLIR) because they are part of the northern and eastern boundaries of the FDLIR. The
fish contaminants of concern, listed by the MDH, are mercury (above Cloquet) and mercury
and PCBs (below Cloquet). In general, the advisory lists one meal per week as the restriction
for most species and sizes. Below Cloquet, however, the advisory suggests that meals should
be restricted to one per month for yellow perch, carp, and larger walleye.
Because of several landfills, waste disposal sites, municipalities, industries, and the construction
of several reservoirs along the Sl Louis River (StLR) there exists a potential for locally higher
mercury concentration "hot spots" (StLR RAP, 1992; Bodaly et al.. 1984). The limited data
from which the consumption advisories are derived are inadequate to detect these potential
hot spots and may, thus, be inadequate for advising the public to limit consumption of fish
along this river stretch.
The objective of this study was to quantify mercury concentrations in fish commonly caught
and eaten by local fishermen in conjunction with the data needs for the Subsistence
Fishermen/Mercury Study on the FDLIR and to provide baseline information for evaluating
possible mercury sources and transports. This work was initiated as part of a larger project
studying St. Louis River Water Resources being conducted by the Natural Resource Program
of FDLIR.
Study Design
Thirteen StLR fish study areas (Figure 1) were selected between Chambers Grove (near
southeast comer of FDLIR) and Paupores (near northwest comer of FDLIR). The goal was to
collect the widest possible range of fish sizes per species from each area in order to model
mercury concentrations as a function of fish size. Results of this modeling should give bener
254
255
resolution lo Tish consumption concerns in addition to providing information on mercury
contamination sources.
Because fish may in some cases be highly mobile and slow to change mercui7 levels in
response to new surroundings, results must be interpreted carefully. That is. some areas may
show both high and low fish mercury levels indicating a mixture of both local and transient
fish. For those areas as well as "upstream input areas" additional measurements of mercury in
medium (such as water, plankton, and sediment) that respond differently (temporally) to
mercury contamination are needed. For this purpose we chose to sample water (fast mercury
response), plankton (intermediate response), and sediment (slow response; downstream
mobility only). Appendix A describes each sampling site and indicates fish movement
constraints resulting from various dams.
Methods and Materials
Fish Sampling. During the summer of 1990, personnel from the FDLIR made several
sampling visits to two sites on the St. Louis River (near Brookston and Cloquet) to collect
various game fish for mercury analysis. A total of 62 fish were collected using both trotlines
and gillnets as follows: black crappie (1), channel catfish (26), northern pike (3), northern
redhorse sucker (3), white sucker (6), rock bass (7), smaUmouth bass (11). and walleye (5).
In 1991 additional sites on the St. Louis River were added to the survey started in 1990. A
total of 152 fish were collected in 1991 as follows: black crappie (1), bluegill sunfish (1),
channel catfish (64), nonhem pike (15), northern redhorse sucker (2),white sucker (2), rock
bass (2), smallmouth bass (29), and walleye (36). A summary of the fish collection inventory
is shown in Table I; site locations are defined in Figure 1 and Appendix A; and sampling
dates and raw data are given in the Appendix B.
Immediately after the fish were collected, weights and lengths were measured and fillets were
removed and frozen. The samples were sent to the UMD/ERL-D (University of Minnesota-
Duluth / Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth) mercury laboratory and kept frozen
until analyzed.
256
Table I.
Inventory of Fish Sampling from the Sl Louis River*
site
number
black
cmppie
blucgill
channel
catfish
northern
pike
n.rh.
sucker
rock
bass
sm.
bass
walleye
white
sucker
Total
1590
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
U
0
14
1610
0
0
12
3
0
0
13
4
0
32
1654
0
0
1
4
0
0
12
11
0
28
1710
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1740
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
1760
0
0
23(15,8)
4 (2,2)
2 (0,2)
3(1,2)
4 (2,2)
6(1.5)
3(1,2)
45 (22,23)
1762
0
0
11
2
0
0
0
3
0
16
1763
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1777
1 (1.0)
1 (0.1)
11 (11,0)
5 (1.4)
3 (3.0)
6 (6,0)
10(9.1)
6(4.2)
5(5,0)
48 (40.8)
1782
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1790
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1800
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1802
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Total
2(1.1)
1 (0,1)
90 (26,64)
18(3.15)
5 (3,2)
9(7,2)
40(11.29)
41 (5,36)
8(6,2)
214 (62.152)
'Entries are for the 1991 sampling year except for sites 1760 and 1777 where 1990 samples were also taken. The totals
for the individual years (1990,1991) arc shown within the parentheses.
Other Sampling. Water, plankton (mesh size > 80^.), and sediment were sampled by
personnel from UMD in October of 1991 (JI5 sites for water, 4 sites for plankton, and 10 sites
for sediment) and again in June 1992 (11 sites for water, 11 sites for plankton, and 1 site for
sediment) using the methods described in Glass et al. (1990) and Sorensen etal. (1990).
Analytical Methods
Mercury (total) measurement methods utilized cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry
(CVAA) approved by the USEPA (1983) with modifications for standardizing operating
procedures and screening reagents for lowest levels of Hg content to reduce the blank value.
General details for analysis and quality assurance are published in Glass et al. (1990) and
Sorensen et al. (1990). Specific details regarding fish analysis are given in Olson et al.
(1975) Mercury concentrations in fish are expressed in terms of wet tissue weight while
those for plankton and sediment are in terms of dry sample weight.
Fish ages were detennined by personnel from the FDLIR by counting annular growth rings
on scales. In some cases ages were reported as greater thans (e.g. 5+ yr), and were treated as
the next highest half-year ages for all analyses in this report (e.g. 5+ yr = 5.5 yr).
257
Results
Quality Assurance
The results of the quality assurance analyses of mercury measurements of various
environmental samples are shown in Table II. Accuracy and precision of the measurements
are within acceptable limits of expectation. The sampling precision values for plankton and
water are high and may be due to variant flow conditions encountered and values near the
detection limit (for water).
Table II. Analytical Characteristics of Mercury Measurements*
parameter
%
precision''
% reference
recover/*
100(22)
103 (10)
97 (1(5)
95(3)
% spike
lab-^
field
recovery
fish
plankton
water
sediment
6(35)
4(2)
11(4)
9(5)
56(13)
51(25)
30(4)
94(11)
83(7)'
97 (8)'
114(3)
•Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of samples or sample pairs associated with the entry.
''Precision divided by mean measurement x 100%.
Precision for fish is based on replicate analyses of the same fillet
''Certified reference materials are as follows: walleye - Nat. Res. Cncl., Canada EKDRM-l dogfish
muscle; water - Nat. Bureau of Stds 1641b water; and sediment - Nat. Bureau of Stds 1645
Buffalo R. sedimenL
'Includes Sl Louis River water samples from Sorensen eial. (1992a)
An additional check was made for internal consistencies in the data by testing the
relationships among fish size parameters Gength, weight, and age). Plots of these
relationships are shown in Figures 2, 3. and 4 where power curves (Y=A*X^) have been fined.
The weight vs length plots in Figure 2 show no significant outlier points relative to the fitted
curves. However, numerous departures from the fitted curves (suggesting varying growth
rates) are found in Figures 3 and 4 where length and weight are plotted against age. This is
especially true for the case of channel catfish where several weights (or lengths) are
significantly above the norm. Many of those outliers (dark circles) are from channel catfish
taken fixim the Fond du Lac Reservoir (site 1610).
Mercury in Fish. Summaries of fish mercury concentration statistics for each species across
all sites are given in Table III and a summary of species length, weight, and age are given in
Table IV. Individual results for each fish are given in Appendix B.
258
'•m3!»m
3 'mSisM
o
X3
00
o
8.
u
u
c
o
o
X
o
3 'mSuM
3 'igSuM
8 'ig3!»M
3 'igSiSM
. -1
c
u
T3
C
— oc
a.
o 1^
■3 (~-
o — ■
O VI
o ^
° s
— «
Vi
CO
^ O
n
o
T3
c
C
o
<W
CM
c/a
r-
a>
^
a
o
o
£
a
r»
' *»M'!»M
8 'igaiaM
259
QC 3 I
^
1 - <
U13 'iflSuS'l
1119 'qiSuri
i2 c
OO mv)
C3
CD '
3
O
5
\
\
0
-
^
uio'niaujq
1113 'qiSinq
■
'
<M
, \n
■ \n
O
■"
V
' '\3m
C
S;
' 'oBk
6 ]
2 «
OS
ha
<
|1
W)
•
■^ ■
•
3 O O
o e e
V »n r*
O G
uio*i)i3(»^
111} 'qiSua'^
o
«
n
3
E
y
>,
00
o
w)
«J
o
u
o
r~-
x: —
(>
X
<o
.
u
o
w
£
>o
o
u
CO
cm'
c
u
o
^
o
r~
00
c
■o
V)
- ■
o
(/)
c
u
u
o
to
2i
o
u-1
£,
^"
3
CO
«J
or
O.
'^
r
T3
V3
U
c
u
O
o
y
U
M
CJ
T3
c
5
1^^
o
m
C/3
a
»
','
■a
o
o
ec
■^
U.
£
UU'lf|3u3q
260
o c
C I
\
\
HE O \CC
D I
3
a:
iu3 'imSijax
ui3 'iqSu^
a
U
a
CO
«
t
V)
«>
k.
R
3
E
S"
>N
C/5
C
K
o
U
o
U
Si
r~
CO
u
ui3 'iqSiSyvv
ui3 'm3!»M
ui3 'm3wA\
-
1 1
-I 1
-
'd
u
o
Blac
1 1 .
^ <
o
•^
«
^
u
o
2
o
o
on
.^
S3
«rt
<N
c
o
O
n
y
C
o
r-
nn
t~
■o
p~
u
*
«/3
o
vt
c
u
u
o
fi
^*
o.
u>
C
o
u
O
*~
u:
o
C3
u
•o
0^
c
g
o
en
rr
!"
1
3
o
o
00
■V
E
£
l~
r, <
ui3 '1M313AV
ui3 ')m3ua\
261
Tabic III indicates, overall, that black crappie are the lowest in mercury concentration while
channel catfish are the highest. A more quantitative and accurate comparison may be
accomplished, though, by taking into account fish size and location. Both of these factors
have been shown in other studies (e.g. Sorensen et al., 1990) to strongly influence fish
mercury concentrations . In order to address these dependencies, we determine or
mathematically model the relationship between mercury concentration and fish size for each
sampling site.
Table III. Statistical Summary of Mercury in Fish for Each
Species Across All Sampling Sites
species
n
2
mercury concentration
(ppb)
min
max
mean
median
black crappie
62
130
96
96
channel catfish
90
152
1860
466
412
nonhem pike
18
158
640
339
305
redhorse sucker
5
318
718
457
375
white sucker
8
124
366
272
288
rock bass
9
130
608
344
334
sm. bass
40
117
758
352
307
walleye
41
136
1486
438
358
Table IV. Statistical Summary of Fish Size Parameters for Each Species Across All Sampling Sites
species
n^
2
length (cm)
weight (gm)
age(yr)
min
20.1
max
24.1
mean
22.1
median
min
113
max
227
mean
170
median
min
3.5
max
4
mean
3.8
median
black crappie
22.1
170
3.8
channel catfish
90
25.9
64.8
47.6
49.0
113
2807
1090
1049
2
16
7.7
8
northern pike
18
34.8
74.4
54.0
54.4
255
3090
1144
1021
2
9
4.3
3.5
redhorse sucker
5
35.1
45.7
43.0
45.0
510
1362
1010
1135
6
6
6.0
6
while sucker
8
34.8
45.0
41.7
43.9
568
1134
879
908
4
8
5.3
5
rock bass
9
15.2
26.9
21.2
22.9
■85
454
262
340
3
9
5.4
5
sm. bass
40
16.3
40.4
30.6
31.1
85
1021
486
459
2
5
3.6
4
walleye
41
25.9
54.1
35.1
33.5
142
1729
461
340
2
6
3.1
3
*Ages were not determined for all fish; the n value for the age statistics are 2, 83, 10, 3. 6, 9, 20, and 41 for black
crappie through walleye, respectively.
Before modeling the fish mercury concentration data we must resolve two issues: 1) can fish
mercury concentration data from two sampling years (1990 and 1991) be merged? and 2)
which fish size parameter is the most appropriate? Figure 5 shows the relationships between
mercury levels in catfish and fish length for two sampling regions along the river with the two
sampling years delineated. With the exception of three outliers (all firom 1991) there is no
significant difference between the two years.
10
262
a.
«
s
2000
ISOO -
c
I 1000
o
u
u
soo -
20
Sites 1760 & 1762
1
•
-
•
-
a
m ^^
■ •
y^^
D
°^
_
_^^
i-bX
D "^
Channel Catfish
ISOO
30 40 SO
Length, cm
60
70
Sites 1777 & 1782
30 40 SO 60
Length, cm
70
Figure 5. Mercury concentrations in channel catfish for two regions of the St. Louis River.
Symbols are as follows: squares - sites 1760 and 1777, circles - sites 1762 and 1782, white -
1990 samples, and black - 1991 samples.
The statistical relationships between size and age variables are given in Table V as Pearson
correlation coefficients (using log transformed variables) between fish mercury
concentrations and fish size parameters Gength, weight, and age) for each species and site
where sufficient data were available. In general, fish length scores slightly higher than weight
and significantly higher than age in correlating with mercury residue levels. The results
suggest a power relationship of the following form
(1) CHg = A*LB
where CHg is the mercury concentration in fish, L is the fish length, and A and B are
constants that vary depending on fish species and body of water. This is the same expression
used for walleye and northern pike for 65 Minnesota lakes by Sorensen er al. (1990).
11
263
The constants A and B for each species and site are found by regression and are shown in
Table V. These constants and equation (1) are then used to calculate a reference mercury
concentration for each species and site for a chosen reference fish length. The reference fish
lengths for walleye and northern pike are 39 cm and 55 cm, respectively, based on several
considerations (Sorensen et ai, 1990). For other species, the median lengths given in Table
IIIA are used as the reference lengths.
Table V. Site and Species Specific Summary of Statistical Analyses of Mercury in Fish
correlation^ of Hg
cone
regression'^
reference<^
reference'^
species
n
with fish size parameters
constants
Hg cone.
95% conf Int.
site
length
weight
age''
A
B
(ppb)
(ppb)
channel cafish
1610
12
0.88
0.86
0.82
0.0738
2.20
393
366- 422
1710
4
0.97
0.97
t
2.52
1.54
994
871 - 1135
1760
23
0.67
0.66
0.54
0.581
1.67
385
358- 414
1762
11
0.63
0.60
0.55
0.00382
2.98
420
361 - 488
1763
10
0.44
0.46
0.16
6.93
1.05
410
368 - 457
1777
11
0.91
0.88
0.93
1.05
1.54
426
404 - 449
1782
10
0.72
0.70
0.83
0.0442
2.44
586
503- 682
northern pike
1654
4
0.89
0.94
0.93
1.19
1.38
294
253- 342
1760
4
0.95
0.95
T
108
0.254
298
295- 301
1777
5
0.76
0.72
t
0.480
1.63
332
294- 375
while sucker
\111
5
0.80
0.55
0.87
0.00217
3.15
326
271 - 392
rock bass
\ni
6
0.86
0.93
0.34
0.0128
3.28
375
327- 429
smallmouth bass
1610
13
0.87
0.82
t
0.289
2.08
371
349- 395
1654
12
0.87
0.89
0.81
0.883
1.74
349
327- 372
1760
4
0.53
0.18
t
0.00091
3.76
373
281 - 494
mi
10
0.44
0.37
0.28
0.328
1.95
263
218- 319
walleye
1590
11
0.89
0.92
0.81
0.599
1.90
474
435- 516
1610
4
0.51
0.34
0.03
0.0121
3.00
726
216 - 2438
16S4
11
0.84
0.82
0.27
0.00110
3.57
519
436- 618
1760
6
0.64
0.63
0.18
1.92
1.46
401
349- 460
1777
6
0.24
0.27
0.08
-
-
309
284- 336
"Correlations are for log-transformed variables.
''Ages were not determined for all fish; a t indicates insufficient data for the age-Hg cone, correlation. Other
age entries are derived firom the same number of data points as weight and length entries except for
smallmouth bass sites 1654 and 1777 where n (for age) are both nine.
•^Regression equation is: Hg conc(ppb) = A x length(cm)B.
•^Reference mercury concentrations are calculated using the regression equation for the following fish
lengths: 55 cm northern pike and 39 cm walleye (Sorensen et al., 1990) and median lengths (Table IV) for
other species.
12
264
From Table V it is clear that channel catfish from site 1710 (Scanlon Dam) have significantly
more mcrcur>' contamination than fish from the other sites. Mercury in walleye from site
1610 (Fond du Lac Reservoir) are also high but there is a high degree of uncertainty
associated with those results because of the small range of fish sizes and few samples
collected.
Figure 6 shows the site specific relationship between mercury concentrations in fish and
length for various species. In general, one finds that individual data points from the smaller
confined river stretches (sites downstream of 1740) exhibit less variabilities about the
modeled curves than those for sites above the last barrier within the study area (1740 and
above).
For the downstream sites, the fish mercury data are adequate to descnbe the mercury
exposure within those areas. However, some upstream sites (e.g. 1760 and 1762; channel
catfish), clearly show the infiuence of fish that have been subject to different mercury
exposures. From this data one may hypothesize the existence of one or more mercury
source(s) somewhere within or above that stretch of the river.
Consumption Advisory Levels. Of the 214 fish analyzed, 15 fell within the MDH advisory
category 1. 180 were in category 2, and 19 were in category 3. These categories are defined
in the footnotes in Table VI.
As a final application of the regression constants in Table V and equation (1) we may
calculate the fish lengths that correspond to the MDH mercury consumption advisory levels.
Table VI summarizes the results of these calculations for each species and site listed in Table
V. These calculations were extended to 20% above/below the maximum and minimum fish
lengths sampled.
Mercury in Water. A basic statistical summary of mercury in water, plankton (>80u), and
sediments are given in Table VII while the raw data for each sample are listed in Appendix C.
Mercury concentrations in water can be characterized as mostly between the detection limit of
2 ng/L and 4 ng/L. The variabilities at some sites could be a result of varying amounts of
particulates in the water sample that have been shown to contain significant amounts of
mercury (Glass et al., 1990). The sites with samples higher than average mercury in water
concentrations are 1651 (Forbay Lake), 1780 (St. Louis River at Hwy 31), 1820 (St. Louis
River at Gowan), 2710 (Stoney Brook at Hwy 31), and 2850 (Whiteface River at Hwy 226).
13
265
L
• \»* ^
■
•». ■\
^
u
» "
N'
, , \
•
.
o z
1
•
1 .
\^
u
M "
\-
^-^ 1
u
• \
^
.«
• ••>•• .
•
:£
•^«
"2
\ .
^
«
\
• ,
"^->.^^
■
^^. •
•^ •
•T
^
»■ -
^v
(J
r V
■
\
«
\,'
£_
\\
\—
~
\
\t
u
2
a
, A
«
— ' — V —
\»
u
•f
«
u
•
1
\
_ ^
-^^
^
•^\»
v»
-
• z
"n^ •
u
■ ^
\
£
o
w
E
e
o
1=
1
35
%44 '••tia«ia*>»«3 Jja»j«|^
«4d ■••|t«Jl.**«*3 «J«.i.K
«44 *««11"'1**>**3 J4B«J*M
14
266
Tabic VI Fish Lengths Corresponding to various Consumption Advisory Levels (MDH, 1991)* for Sites
along the St. Louis River
water body
site #
species
fish length (inches) where indicated advisory is equaled
160 ppb - 660 ppb 1000 ppb 2810 ppb
Chambers Grove
Fond du Lac Reservoir
Thomson Reservoir
Scanlon Dam
1590 walleye
1610
1654
channel catfish
sm. bass
walleye
nonhem pike
sm. bass
walleye
< 12.2**
12.9*
8.2
9.4*
13.7
7.8
11.0
1710 channel catfish < 10.2*
StLR above town of Cloquet 1760
mouth of White Pine River
channel catfish 11.4*
northern pike < 15.8**
sm. bass 9.8*
walleye < 12.1*'
1762 channel catfish 14.0*
StLR above White Pine River 1763 channel catfish < 15.2**
mouth of Cloquet River
1777
channel catfish
nonhem pike
white sucker
rock bass
sm. bass
walleye
10.3*
13.8*
13.8
7.0*
9.4*
< 10.0**
StLR above ctyrd.31
1782 channel catfish 11.3*
15.7
24. 6 1
16.2t
15.01
> 24.5tt
17.6t
16.5i
14.6
26.6t
> 25.3tt
14.2t
21.5t
22.5
> 28.6tt
20.2
19.7
t I
Ti
tt
tt
rt
18.5t
19.2
tt
tt
15.9t
tt
25.9t
tt
24.0t
1 1
tt
tt
tt
tt
> 25.5tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
25.8t
tt
tt
25.2tt
tt
tt
17.7tt
tt
tt
10.8t
12.2t
tt
15.9tt
tt
tt
15.1tt
tt
tt
"advisory categories:
(1) less than 160 ppb
(2) 160-660 ppb
(3) 660-2810 ppb
greater than 1000 ppb
FDA restriction for commercial use
♦extrapolated below actual range of fish sizes collected (up lo 20% below smallest fish)
**bclow 20% extrapolation range; entries with "<" indicate length of smallest fish sampled
textrapolated beyond actual range of fish sizes collected (up to 20% above largest fish)
ttbeyond 20% extrapolation range; entries with ">" indicate length of largest fish sampled
tt
General Population
Hipher Risk Population
Unrestricted
one meal per week
one meal per week
one meal per month
one meal ner month
no consumption
Mercury in Plankton. In some cases (e.g. sites 1590 and 1654) mercury in plankton data are
extremely variable and depend highly on the plankton density in the water column (low
densities yield high mercury concentrations). The highest consistent concentrations were
found at site 1710 (Scanlon Dam) and coincide with the highest concentrations observed for
mercury in fish.
15
267
Mercury in Sediment. The highest sediment concentrations were observed at site 1775 (St.
Louis River at Hwy 2), 1780 (St. Louis River at Hwy 31), 2280 (mouth of Midway River at
the Thomson Reservoir), 2720 (mouth of Anichoke River). These results indicate that 1) the
Midway River may be draining an area that is significantly contaminated with mercury, 2)
there may be several mercury source areas in the upper StLR contributing to the observed
levels in fish, and 3) additional sediment samples above the Scanlon impoundment are needed
to better identify potential upstream mercury sources.
Table VII. Statistical Summary of Data Relating to Water, Plankton, and Sediment Samples
parameter n min max mean median
Hg in water (ng/L)
Hg in plankton (ppb)
plankton density in water (mg/m^)
Hg in sediment (ppb)^
% moisture in sediment
52
1
9
3
2
28
48
4260
532
245
31
0.1
65.9
15.2
6.8
13
15
97
41
30
13
15.4
96.8
40.9
29.7
^Analyzed as a wet sample.
Summary and Conclusions
Mercury in Fish and Consumption Advisories. Mercury concentrations in fish show that most
fish from the sites sampled can be categorized by MDH criteria as being restricted to one
meal per week for the general population (Minnesota). For our sample group it appears that
the channel catfish, redhorse sucker, and walleye are the highest in mercury while the black
crappie and bluegill sunfish may be the lowest, though more data is necessary to confirm the
latter.
Mercury Concentration in Fish vs Fish Length. The mercury concentrations in channel
catfish, northern pike, white sucker, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye taken from these
St. Louis River sites follow a power relationship with fish length. More data is needed to
define the mathematical relationship for black crappie, bluegill sunfish, and redhorse sucker.
Channel catfish taken from the Scartlon Dam were significantly higher in mercury than fish
from all other sampling sites. Sites above the Scanlon impoundment have a mixture of fish
with both high mercury levels, approaching those at the Scanlon dam, and levels that are
significantly lower This data suggests that one or more mercury source(s) exist somewhere
within or upstnjam that stretch of the river.
16
268
Mercury in Water. Plankton, and Sediment. Mercury levels in water showed some sites were
higher than average conccnirations, possibly indicatitig watershed inputs. Mercury
concentrations in plankton were highest at site 1710 (Scanlon Dam), the same site where the
highest mercury levels in fish were observed. The mouth of the Midway River and three sites
above the town of Cloquet showed the highest mercury contamination in sediment. More
sediment analyses from the upstream areas of this study and beyond are needed to better
identify potential mercury sources.
References
Bodaly, R.A., R.E. Hecky, and R.J.P. Fudge. 1984. Increases in Fish Mercury Levels in Lakes
Hooded by the Churchill River Diversion. Northern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41(4):682-691.
Glass. G.E.. Sorensen. J. A.. Schmidt. K. W., and Rapp. G. R.. Jr. 1990. New Source
Identification of Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes. Environ. Sci. &. Technol.
24(7):1059-1069.
Olson, G.F.. Mount. D.I., and Snarski, V. M. 1975. Mercury Residues in Fathead Minnows.
Pimephales promelas Rafinesque. Chronically Exposed to Methylmercury in Water. Bullet.
Environ. Contam. Tax. 14(2);129-134.
MDH. 1992. Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory. Minnesota Depanment of Health,
Minneapolis MN.
StLR RAP. 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Flan - Stage One Report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul MN.
Sorensen. J.A.. G.E. Glass. K.W. Schmidt, and G.R. Rapp. Jr. 1992a. Mercury Concentrations
in Fish from the St. Louis River near the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation. Report to Fond
du Lac Indian Reservation. Cloquet. MN.
Sorensen. J.A.. Glass. G. E.. Schmidt, K. W.. Ruber. J. K.. and Rapp. G. R.. Jr.: 1990. Airborne
Mercury Deposition and Watershed Characteristics in Relation to Mercury Concentrations
in Water, Sediments. Plankton, and Fish of Eighty Northern Minnesota Lakes. Environ. Sci.
& Technol. 24(1 1):1716-1727.
USEPA 1983. Mercury Method 245.1 Revised 3/83. EPA-600/4-79-020.
17
269
Appendix A
St. Louis River (StLR) Watershed Sampling Site Descriptions
site
river
stretch"
site description
sample type
fish
water
plankton
sediment
1590
1
Upper StLR Estuary at Chambers Grove
V
V
V
1610
2
Fond du Lac Reservoir
V
V
V
1651
3
Forbav Lake
>/
V
1654
4
Thomson Reservoir
V
V
V
1710
5
Scanlon Dam Impoundment
>/
V
V
1740
6
StLR at MN highway 33 bridge
yl
V
V
1760
6
StLR above city of Cloquet (near Pine Is.)
V
1762
6
mouth of White Pine River
V
V
V
1763
6
StLR 1/2 mile above White Pine River
V
1775
6
StLR at Hwy 2
V
V
1777
6
mouth of Cloquet River
V
1780
6
StLR at Hwy 31
>/
>/
>/
1782
6
StLR 1/2 mile above Sl Louis cty rd 31
V
1790
6
StLR near train tressel near Brookston
>/
1800
6
StLR 8 miles above Brookston
>/
V
V
1802
6
StLR at Paupores
V
1820
6
StLR at Gowan
V
V
1860
6
StLR at Hwy 29
V
V
>/
2280
4
mouth of Midway River
>/
V
2432
6
Cloquet River below Hwy 7
>/
V
V
2710
6
Stoney Brook at Hwy 31
V
V
2720
6
Artichoke River at Hwy 3
>i
V
2830
6
Big Savanna River at Hwy 2
>/
2840
6
Floodwood River at Hwy 2
>/
V
2850
6
Whiteface River at Hwy 226
V 1 V 1 >/ 1
•River stretches are defined in terms of regions within which fish may migrate unimpeded by barriers (dams).
A-1
270
Appendix B
Summary of Mercury Measurements for 214 Fish Collected from the St. Louis River
Species
Site
FDLIR
Date
Date
Weight
Length
Age
Hg Cone.
1777
Code
collected
analyzed
(Ib-oz)
(in)
(yrs)
4
(ng/g)
black crappie
B-7
08/29/90
05/01/91
0-8
9.5
130
black crappie
1740
C-1
06/28/91
01/08/92
0^
7.9
3-h
62
bluegill sunfish
1777
D-6
07/12/91
01/08/92
0-7
6.6
4
63
channel catfish
1760
7
10/03/91
12/20/91
5A
24.4
9
765
channel catfish
1760
A-2
06/25/91
01/15/92
2-6
19.7
10+
634
channel catfish
1760
A-2
09/01/90
03/22/91
3-5
21.6
\0+
492
channel catfish
1760
A-3
06/25/91
01/15/92
1-0
14.5
5■^
179
channel catfish
1777
A-3
08/29/90
05/01/91
2-7
20.2
11
519
channel catfish
1760
A-4
06/25/91
01/24/92
0-10
13.0
5
204
channel catfish
1760
A-5
06/25/91
01/15/92
1-0
14.5
5
244
channel catfish
1760
A-6
06/25/91
01/15/92
0-12
14.2
6
232
channel catfish
1777
A-6
08/29/90
05/01/91
1-13
18.5
8
443
channel catfish
1777
A-6^
08/29/90
05/01/91
1-13
18.5
8
516
channel catfish
1760
A-7
06/25/91
01/11/92
0-12
13.7
6
203
channel catfish
1760
A-7
08/01/90
03/01/91
2-0
17.8
9•^
538
channel catfish
1760
A-8
06/25/91
01/11/92
1-12
17.1
8-)-
419
channel catfish
1760
A-8
08/21/90
03/01/91
2-0
18.4
8
387
channel catfish
1760
A-8 =
08/21/90
03/22/91
2-0
18.4
8
421
channel catfish
1777
A-9
08/29/90
05/01/91
M
17.0
7
309
channel catfish '
1762
B-5
06/26/91
01/15/92
1-12
18.0
7
294
channel catfish
1762
B-fb
06/26/91
01/15/92
1-12
18.0
7
313
channel catfish
1777
B-6
08/23/90
03/22/91
2A
20.3
9
528
channel catfish
1760
B-8
08/01/90
03/01/91
3-7
20.5
7
367
channel catfish
1760
C-1
08/01/90
03/01/91
3-4
21.6
8
456
channel catfish
1760
C-3
08/01/90
03/01/91
M
16.1
6
218
channel catfish
1760
C-4
08/01/90
03/01/91
2-8
20.0
10
212
channel catfish
1760
C-5
08/01/90
03/01/91
3-4
20.5
12
312
channel catfish
1760
C-6
08/21/90
03/01/91
3-0
20.2
13
523
channel catfish
1760
C-6 =
08/21/90
03/22/91
3-0
20.2
13
510
channel catfish
1760
C-8
08/01/90
03/01/91
2-0
18.0-
8
440
channel catfish
1760
C-9
08/01/90
03/01/91
2-0
18.2
7
368
channel catfish
1777
C-10
08/29/90
05/01/91
2-6
19.5
10
392
channel catfish
1760
D-1
08/01/90
03/01/91
1-8
17.5
6
289
channel catfish
1777
D-2
08/29/90
05/01/91
2-6
19.2
8
384
channel catfish
1777
D-3
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-0
14.4
5
210
channel catfish
1777
D-3^
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-0
14.4
5
206
channel catfish
1777
CM
08/25/90
03/15/91
0-12
14.0
6
275
channel catfish
1777
D-6
09/01/90
03/22/91
3-0
20.1
11
554
channel catfish
1777
D-eb
09/01/90
03/22/91
3-0
20.1
11
491
channel catfish
1790
E-1
07/19/91
01/11/92
0-12
13.8
6+
439
channel catfish
1790
E-2
07/19/91
01/11/92
0-12
14.0
7
593
channel catfish
1777
E-3
09/01/90
03/01/91
0-7
11.2
4
204
channel catfish
1777
E-9
10/13/89
03/22/91
4-0
23.4
12
492
channel catfish
1760
E-10
09/01/90
03/22/91
3-6
21.8
16
327
channel catfish
1762
F-1
07/26/91
01/15/92
2-9
20.5
356
channel catfish
1762
F-2
07/26/91
01/15/92
1-10
18.1
6-t-
263
channel catfish
1760
F-2
08/01/90
03/01/91
2-8
20.0
9
740
channel catfish
1762
F-3
07/26/91
01/15/92
4-15
24.5
1860
channel catfish
1760
F-4
08/01/90
03/01/91
4-0
21.8
9
265
channel catfish
1762
F-7
07/26/91
01/15/92
3-8
22.3
11-f
278
channel catfish
1762
F-12
07/26/91
01/15/92
2-3
19.4
10+
822
channel catfish
1762
F-15
07/26/91
01/15/92
2-12
21.2
11+
478
B-1
271
Species
Site
FDLIR
Date
Date
Wcieht
Length
Age
Hg ConC
1762
Code
collected
analyzed
(Ib-oz)
2-9
(in)
(yrs)
9+
(ng/g)
channel catfish
F-18
07/26/91
01/15/92
21.1
632
channel catfish
1762
F-lSb
07/26/91
01/15/92
2-9
21.1
9+
593
channel catfish
1762
F-I9
07/26/91
01/15/92
2-9
19.1
309
channel catfish
1762
F-20
07/26/91
01/15/92
1-2
15.9
5+
287
channel catfish
1762
F-22
07/26/91
01/15/92
1-3
16.8
367
channel catfish
1782
G-l
08/01/91
01/11/92
3^
22.0
10-K
1161
channel catfish
1782
G-3
08/01/91
01/15/92
1-2
15.9
6+
363
channel catfish
1782
G-5
08/01/91
01/11/92
2-1
18.2
9
960
channel catfish
1782
G-7
08/01/91
01/15/92
3-2
21.0
10
576
channel catfish
1782
G-7''
08/01/91
01/15/92
3-2
21.0
10
554
channel catfish
1782
G-8
08/01/91
01/15/92
1-14
17.9
6+
222
channel catfish
1782
G-9
08/01/91
01/15/92
lA
18.5
8
567
channel catfish
1782
G-10
08/01/91
01/11/92
2-10
19.6
9
500
channel catfish
1782
G-12
08/01/91
01/15/92
0-13
14.0
6+
260
channel catfish
1782
G-13
08/01/91
01/11/92
0-11
13.9
6
304
channel catfish
1782
G-13''
08/01/91
01/11/92
0-11
13.9
6
286
channel catfish
1782
G-14
08/01/91
01/11/92
0-14
15.2
5
339
channel catfish
1763
H-1
08/03/91
01/11/92
4-9
24.9
lO-t-
349
channel catfish
1763
H-2
08/03/91
01/15/92
4-6
23.8
10+
472
channel catfish
1763
H-4
08/03/91
01/11/92
2-1
19.2
9+
267
channel catfish
1763
H-5
08/03/91
01/15/92
2-10
20.5
6+
613
channel catfish
1763
H-6
08/03/91
01/15/92
1-10
17.7
6-t-
430
channel catfish
1763
H-8
08/03/91
01/15/92
3-0
20.8
9-H
628
channel catfish
1763
H-9
08/04/91-
01/24/92
3-4
21.8
10
485
channel catfish
1763
H-12
08/03/91
01/15/92
2-1
19.1
9+
324
channel catfish
1763
H-13
08/03/91
01/15/92
3-0
21.2
9-1-
660
channel catfish
1763
H-14
08/03/91
01/11/92
1-2
15.2
S-f-
284
channel catfish
1763
H-Mb
08/03/91
01/11/92
1-2
15.2
8-H
271
channel catfish
1800
J-1
08/13/91
01/24/92
4-15
24.4
10
993
channel catfish
1800
J-2
08/13/91
01/24/92
0-13
14.5
6
181
channel catfish
1802
K-1
08/14/91
01/11/92
1-12
16.1
4+
196
channel catfish
1802
K-2
08/14/91
01/11/92
3-2
21.1
8+
475
channel catfish
1610
T-3
08/28/91
01/08/92
0-12
13.1
2
152
channel catfish
1610
T-5
08/30/91
01/08/92
4-5
22.0
5+
543
channel catfish
1610
T-6
08/30/91
01/03/92
4-6
22.2
4
452
channel catfish
1610
7-6"
08/30/91
01/03/92
4-6
22.2
4
541
channel catfish
1610
T-7
08/30/91
01/08/92
2-12
20.0
3
496
channel catfish
1610
T-8
08/30/91
01/08/92
M
16.0
3
282
channel catfish
1610
T-9
08/30/91
01/08/92
5-6
23.7
5
397
channel catfish
1610
T-10
08/30/91
01/08/92
4-12
23.0
7-1-
996
channel catfish
1610
T-U
08/30/91
01/08/92
3-0
20.2
5
440
channel catfish
1610
T-12
08/30/91
01/08/92
4-14
22.4
6
511
channel catfish
1610
T-13
08/30/91
01/03/92
4-12
22.8
5
583
channel catfish
1610
T-14
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-2
15.4
3
256
channel catfish
1610
T-15
08/30/91
01/08/92
2-2
18.3
5
301
channel catfish
1654
U-11.
08/31/91
01/03/92
6-3
25.5
8
1088
channel catfish
1710
V-1
08/29/91
01/08/92
0^
10.2
3
332
channel catfish
1710
V-lb
08/29/91
01/08/92
04
10.2
3
298
channel catfish
1710
V-2
08/29/91
01/08/92
0-10
14.1
563
channel catfish
1710
V-3
08/29/91
01/08/92
04
10.4
455
channel catfish
1710
V-4
08/29/91
01/08/92
3^
20.5
1131
channel catfish
1590
W-12
08/31/91
01/08/92
3-6
20.4
7
404
channel catfish
1590
W-13
08/31/91
01/08/92
3-2
21.1
8
858
B-2
272
Species
Site
FDLIR
Date
Date
Weight
Length
Age
Hg Cone*
1760
Code
5
collected
analyzed
(Ib-oz)
(in)
(yrs)
(ng/g)
northern pike
10/03/91
12/20/91
3-0
21.6
297
northern pike
1760
6
10/03/91
12/20/91
0-14
15.8
279
northern pike
1762
B-4
06/26/91
12/20/91
1-0
16.9
4
344
northern pike
1762
B-6
06/26/91
01/03/92
6-13
29.3
8
444
northern pike
1777
D-1
07/12/91
12/20/91
2-4
21.2
268
northern pike
1777
D^
07/12/91
12/20/91
24
20.5
5
258
northem pike
1760
F-3
08/01/90
03/01/91
4-8
25.3
3
314
northern pike
1760
F-7
08/21/90
03/01/91
1-12
19.5
9
284
northem pike
1760
p.-jb
08/21/90
03/01/91
1-12
19.5
9
280
northem pike
1760
F-7<=
08/21/90
03/22/91
1-12
19.5
9
289
northem pike
1777
F-9
07/31/90
03/22/91
1-0
16.5
3
250
northern pike
1777
I-l
08/09/91
01/24/92
3-11
25.2
597
northem pike
1777
1-2
08/09/91
01/24/92
3-8
24.7
351
northem pike
1610
T^
08/28/91
12/20/91
3-0
24.2
425
northem pike
1610
T-31
08/30/91
12/20/91
3-7
23.7
377
northem pike
1610
T-31''
08/30/91
12/20/91
3-7
23.7
429
northem pike
1610
T-32
08/30/91
12/20/91
3-7
24.1
640
northem pike
1654
U-12
08/31/91
12/20/91
1-8
20.7
3
211
northem pike
1654
U-13
08/31/91
12/20/91
0-9
. 13.7
2
158
northern pike
1654
U-22
08/31/91
12/20/91
0-13
15.2
2
196
northern pike
1654
U-22''
08/31/91
12/20/91
0-13
15.2
2
200
northem pike
1654
U-28
08/30/91
12/20/91
3-0
24.5
4
416
n. redhorsc sucker
1777
A^
08/29/90
05/01/91
2-8
17.7
6
549
n. redhorse sucker
1777
A-5
08/29/90
05/01/91
2-8
18.0
6
318
n. redhorse sucker
1760
A-13
06/25/91
01/11/92
2-0
17.1
718
n. redhorse sucker
1760
A-14
06/25/91
01/11/92
1-2
13.8
324
n. redhorse sucker
1760
A-U*"
06/25/91
01/11/92
1-2
13.8
304
n. redhorse sucker
1777
B-9
08/29/90
05/01/91
3-0
18.0
6
375
white sucker
1760
A-10
06/25/91
01/11/92
2-6
17.6
312
white sucker
1760
A-11
06/25/91
01/11/92
2-8
17.3
276
white sucker
1777
C-2
09/28/89
03/22/91
2-0
17.5
5
366
white sucker
1760
C-7
08/21/90
03/01/91
24
17.3
8
278
white sucker
1760
C-7'=
08/21/90
03/22/91
2-4
17.3
8
278
white sucker
1777
D-8
08/25/90
03/15/91
2-0
15.7
5
204
white sucker
1777
E^
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-12
17.7
5
317
white sucker
1777
E-5
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-4
13.7
4
124
white sucker
1777
F-8
09/28/89
03/22/91
1-6
14.7
5
299 .
rock bass
1760
A-9
06/25/91
01/11/92
0-3
6.0
7
130
rock bass
1760
A-10
08/21/90
03/01/91
04
7.0
4
161
rock bass
1760
A-10<=
08/21/90
03/22/91
04
7.0
4
138
rock bass
1760
A-12
06/25/91
01/11/92
0-12
9.0
9
509
rock bass
1777
B-3
09/01/90
03/22/91
0-12
9.6
5
334
rock bass
1777
D-9
08/24/90
03/22/91
0-12
9.0
3
608
rock bass
1777
D-10
08/25/90
03/15/91
0^
7.3
5
199
rock bass
1777
E-6
09/01/90
03/22/91
0-12
9.2
6
442
rock bass
1777
E-7
09/01/90
03/22/91
1-0
10.6
7
585
rock bass
1777
E-7b
09/01/90
03/22/91
1-0
10.6
7
568
rock bass
1777
G-2
08/29/90
05/01/91
0-6
7.3
3
149
smailmouth bass
1760
8
10/03/91
12/20/91
14
12.7
533
smallmouth bass
1760
9
10/03/91
12/20/91
1-6
13.8
636
smailmouth bass
1760
A-1
07/31/90
03/22/91
14
12.4
4
219
smallmouth bass
1777
B-1
09/01/90
03/22/91
1-2
12.3
290
smailmouth bass
1777
B-2
07/31/90
03/22/91
1-6
12.6
4
210
B-3
273
Species
Site
FDLIR
Date
Date
Weight
Length
Age
Hg Cone'
1777
Code
collected
analyzed
(Ib-oz)
(in)
(yrs)
3
(ng/g)
smallmouth bass
B-10
08/29/90
05/01/91
0-12
11.0
226
smallmouih bass
1777
D-5
07/12/91
01/08/92
0-10
10.2
3
143
smallmouth bass
1777
D-7
08/25/90
03/15/91
0-10
10.3
3
117
smallmouth bass
1777
E-2
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-1
12.3
4
300
smallmouth bass
1777
E-8
08/25/90
03/15/91
0-10
10.5
3
267
smallmouth bass
1777
F-5
08/29/90
03/22/91
O-IO
10.0
3
200
smallmouth bass
1777
F-S"
08/29/90
03/22/91
0-10
10.0
3
228
smallmouth bass
1777
F-5b
08/29/90
03/22/91
0-10
10.0
3
215
smallmouth bass
1760
F-6
08/21/90
03/01/91
1-0
11.8
4
429
smallmouth bass
1760
F-6'
08/21/90
03/22/91
1-0
11.8
4
433
smallmouth bass
1777
F-10
08/29/90
05/01/91
0-12
10.6
3
136
smallmouth bass
1777
G-1
08/29/90
03/22/91
0-12
10.7
3
410
smallmouth bass
1777
G-1 *>
08/29/90
03/22/91
0-12
10.7
3
354
smallmouth bass
1610
T-18
08/30/91
01/08/92
1-11
14.4
526
smallmouth bass
1610
T-19
08/30/91
01/08/92
1-12
15.1
629
smallmouth bass
1610
7-19 b
08/30/91
01/08/92
1-12
15.1
619
smallmouth bass
1610
T-20
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-6
13.4
404
smallmouth bass
1610
T-21
08/30/91
01/03/92
M
13.0
621
smallmouth bass
1610
T-22
08/30/91
01/08/92
0-11
10.8
246
smallmouth bass
1610
T-23
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-8
13.7
448
smallmouth bass
1610
T-24
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-0
12.3
373
smallmouth bass
1610
T-25
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-5
13.2
451
smallmouth bass
1610
T-26
08/30/91
01/03/92
0-11
10.7
174
smallmouth bass
1610
T-27
08/30/91
01/03/92
2-4
15.9
662
smallmouth bass
1610
T-28
08/30/91
01/03/92
0-14
11.5
280
smallmouth bass
1610
T-28''
08/30/91
01/03/92
0-14
11.5
276
smallmouth bass
1610
T-29
08/30/91
01/03/92
0-5
8.2
220
smallmouth bass
1610
T-30
08/30/91
01/03/92
1-0
11.0
313
smallmouth bass
1654
U-1
08/28/91
12/20/91
1-12
14.6
4
532
smallmouth bass
1654
U-2
08/28/91
12/20/91
1-14
14.5
758
smallmouth bass
1654
U-3
08/28/91
12/20/91
1-12
13.8
4
408
smallmouth bass
1654
U-14
08/31/91
12/20/91
1-14
14.7
6
774
smallmouih bass
1654
U-15
08/31/91
01/03/92
1-3
12.2
5
438
smallmouth bass
1654
U-16
08/31/91
01/03/92
M
12.7
5
338
smallmouih bass
1654
U-17
08/31/91
01/03/92
0-3
6.4
2
134
smallmouth bass
1654
U-18
08/31/91
12/20/91
1-0
12.0
242
smallmouth bass
1654
U-19
08/31/91
01/03/92
0-13
11.1
4
264
smallmouth bass
1654
u-ig''
08/31/91
01/03/92
0-13
11.1
4
239
smallmouth bass
1654
U-20
08/31/91
01/03/92
1-6
13.2
358
smallmouih bass
1654
U-21
08/31/91
12/20/91
0-14
11.7
4
289
smallmouth bass
1654
U-21''
08/31/91
12/20/91
0-14
11.7
4
294
smallmouth bass
1654
U-27
08/30/91
12/20/91
M
12.5
4
321
smallmouth bass
1590
W-14
08/31/91
01/08/92
0-13
10.5
268
walleye
1760
1
10/03/91
11/27/91
1-14
17.0
3
403
walleye
1760
2
10/03/91
11/27/91
1-14
17.2
3
493
walleye
1760
3
10/03/91
11/27/91
2A
18.7
4
609
walleye
1760
4
10/03/91
11/27/91
0-12
13.2
3
505
walleye
1760
4b
10/03/91
11/27/91
0-12
13.2
3
545
walleye
1760
A-1
06/25/91
11/27/91
0-9
12.1
2+
274
walleye
1762
B-1
06/26/91
11/27/91
0-8
11.9
3
362
walleye
1762
B-2
06/26/91
11/27/91
0-6
11.0
2
589
walleye
1762
B-3
06/26/91
11/27/91
0-8
12.1
5
353
walleye
1760
B4
08/21/90
03/01/91
0-14
13.9
4
204
walleye
1760
B^''
08/21/90
03/01/91
0-14
13.9
4
216 .
walleye
1760
B-4C
08/21/90
03/22/91
0-14
13.9
4
237
walleye
1777
B-5
07/31/90
03/22/91
0-7
11.4
2
274
B-4
274
Species
Site
FDLIR
Date
Date
Weight
Length
Age
Hg Cone."
1777
Code
collected
07/12/91
analyzed
11/27/91
(Ib-oz)
0-9
(in)
(yrs)
4
(ng/g)
walleye
D-2
12.2
272
walleye
1777
D-3
07/12/91
11/27/91
0-8
11.2
3
305
walleye
1777
D-3''
07/12/91
11/27/91
0-8
11.2
3
333
walleye
1777
D-5
08/24/90
03/22/91
1-6
15.1
3
303
walleye
1777
E-1
08/25/90
03/15/91
1-0
14.3
3
285
walleye
1777
F-1
07/31/90
03/22/91
0-12
13.2
3
348
walleye
1777
F-l"
07/31/90
03/22/91
0-12
13.2
3
365
walleye
1610
T-1
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-5
10.2
2-t-
278
walleye
1610
T-l"
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-5
10.2
2+
268
walleye
1610
T-2
08/29/91
10/29/91
0-5
11.0
2
349
walleye
1610
T-16
08/30/91
10/29/91
0-6
10.8
2
136
walleye
1610
T-17
08/30/91
10/29/91
0-10
12.4
2
412
walleye
1654
U-4
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-6
10.6
3
150
walleye
1654
U-5
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-10
12.3
3
203
walleye
1654
U-6
08/28/91
10/29/91
1-0
15.4
4
465
walleye
1654
U-7
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-9
12.0
2
230
walleye
1654
U-8
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-9
11.9
3
291
walleye
1654
U-9
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-13
13.5
2
358
walleye
1654
U-10
08/28/91
10/29/91
0^
12.3
3
211
walleye
1654
U-lQb
08/28/91
10/29/91
0-8
12.3
3
240
walleye
1654
U-23
08/31/91
10/29/91
0-10
12.2
3
163
walleye
1654
U-24
08/31/91
10/29/91
0-12
13.5
3
488
walleye
1654
U-25
08/31/91
10/29/91
0-9
12.3
2
198
walleye
1654
U-26
08/31/91
10/29/91
0-8
11.9
2
188
walleye
1590
W-1
08/31/91
11/21/91
1-0
14.5
3-t-
641
walleye
1590
W-2
08/31/91
11/21/91
0-14
14.2
3
540
walleye
1590
W-3
08/31/91
11/21/91
1-14
17.5
4
566
walleye
1590
W^
08/31/91
11/21/91
2-5
18.8
4
864
walleye
1590
W-5
08/31/91
11/21/91
1-14
17.8
3
780
walleye
1590
W-6
08/31/91
11/21/91
1-2
15.1
3+
654
walleye
1590
w-eb
08/31/91
11/21/91
1-2
15.1
3+
648
walleye
1590
W-7
08/31/91
11/27/91
1-6
14.9
3
727
walleye
1590
W-8
08/31/91
11/27/91
0-9
12.2
3
443
walleye
1590
W-9
08/31/91
11/27/91
3-13
21.3
6
1486
walleye
1590
W-10
08/31/91
11/27/91
0-12
13.5
3
411
walleye
1590
W-10''
08/31/91
11/27/91
0-12
13.5
3
416
walleye
1590
W-11
08/31/91
11/27/91
3-7
20.5
6
1120
walleye
1590
W-ll*"
08/31/91
11/27/91
3-7
20.5
6
1164
•Advisory Categories of Minnesou Health Department :
category 1: less than 160 i^b no restriction
category 2: 160 to 660 ppb one meal per week
category 3: greater than 660 ppb one meal per month except for high risk individuals -
eat none for breast feeding and pregnant women, women who may become pregnant in
the next several years, and children under age six.
•"Duplicate analysis from same fillet
•^Replicate analysis using different fillet from same fish.
B-5
275
Appendix C
Mercury in Waier, Zoopianlcton, and Sediment
SiicNamc
ID. #
Collection
Date
Water
Hg Cone.
(ngA.)
Plankton |
Sediment |
Hg Cone."
(ppb)
Densily''
(mg/m-')
% Water
Content
He Cone
.' (HR/e)
Year
Wet^
Dry'
Day
SlLR at Chambers Grove
10/26/91
< 1
t
0.1
1590
10/26/91
< 1
4260t (4050)t
0.4
6/22/92
3
< 134
4.7
6/22/92
3
136(145)
7.8
Fond du Lac Reservoir
10/26/91
2
217
6.8
1610
10/26/91
2
228
5.4
6/22/92
1
<78.3
17.1
6/22/92
3
342
4.7
Forbay Lake
6/22/92
2
152
12.4
1651
6/22/92
9
273
15.5
Thomson Reservoir
10/26/91
2
t
0.3
1654
10/26/91
2(2)
2930
10.8
6/22/92
2
289
65.9
6/22/92
3
201
62.0
SlLR above Scanlon Dam
10/26/91
3
808
6.1
1710
10/26/91
3
860
1.4
6/22/92
3
636
10.8
6/22/92
2
626
54.3
SlLR Cloquei al Hwy 33
6/30/92
4
784
3.1
1740
6/30/92
3
103
4.7
While Pine R. al moulh
10/31/91
<2
35.3 (49.7)
16.8 (25.8)
14.7 (23.5)
1762
10/31/91
<2
SlLR ai Hwy 2
10/31/91
<2
45.4
49.0
42.7
1775
10/31/91
<2
SlLR at Hwy 31
10/31/91
<2
58.6
56.5
59.0 (62.8)
1780
10/31/91
6
6/30/92
3
318
6.2
6/30/92
5
<48.2
6.2
SlLR above Brooksion
10/31/91
47.3
24.7
29.5
1800
SlLR at Gowan
6/29/92
6
77.9
41.9
1820
6/29/92
4
<385
1.5
SlLR at Hwy 29
10/31/91
<2
25.8
29.7 (29.2)
18.6
1860
10/31/91
10/31/91
<3
<2
27.0
39.8 (28.4)
29.4
6/29/92
< 1
95.8
12.4
6/29/92
4
262
3.1
Midway R., Thomson Res
10/31/91
<2
34.6
86.6
72.4
2280
10/31/91
<2
Cloquei R. below Hwy 7
10/31/91
<2
39.5
25.2
26.8
2432
10/31/91
10/31/91
<2«2)
<2
24.2
15.4
14.9
6/30/92
5(4)
312
1.5
6/30/92
3
124
9.3
Sioncy Brook ai Hwy 31
10/31/91
5
35.4
21.6
25.1
2710
10/31/91
4
C-1
276
Siic Name
I.D. #
Collection
Date
Waier
Hg Cone.
(neA.)
Plankton
Sediment |
Hg Cone.'
(PPb)
Density''
(mK/ni3)
% Water
Content
Hg Cone.' (nejR) \
Year | Day
Wet'
Dry'^
Artichoke R. at Hwy 3
2720
10/31/91
10/31/91
< 2 {< 2)
<2
79.4
96.8
114
Big Savanna R. at Hwy 2
2830
10/31/91
10/31/91
4
4
Floodwood R. at Hwy 2
2840
10/31/91
10/31/91
<2
<2
33.6
47.4
19.3
Whiteface R. at Hwy 226
2850
6/29/92
6/29/92
4
7
127
84.4
20.1
26.4
43.1
16.8
19.0 (20.2)
•Concentrations are expressed on a dry weight basis. Multiple values repotted for the same date are field replicates. Values
given in parentheses are laboratory duplicates.
''Plankton dry weight density in the water column.
'Sediments were analyzed both wet and dry, all values but reponed on dry weight basis.
t Value is either unuseable (not reported) or has high uncertainty due lo small mass of zooplanklon collected.
C-2
277
Fond du Lac Reservation
Natural Resource Program
105 University Road
Cloquet, MN 55720
(218) 879-4593 ext.62
TO: U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Progreun Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
FROM: Larry Schwarzkopf
Program Manager
Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program
DATE: December 8, 1992
RE: Demonstration Project for Sediment Contaminant
Mitigation
The Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program in
cooperation with the University of Minnesota-Duluth, the
University of Wisconsin-Superior, and the Environmental
Research Laboratory-Duluth proposes the Demonstration
Project for the Sediment Contaminant Mitigation to the Great
Lakes National Program Office. ,
The St. Louis River and Lake Superior continues to be
an important aquatic resource of the Fond du Lac Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa. The continuing problem of toxic
contaminants which prevents the safe consumption by our band
members and the general public needs to be addressed. We
have conducted cooperative research with UMD and the
EPA/ERL-Duluth to quantify mercury concentrations in the
fish, plankton, sediments, and water on the St. Louis River
watershed. In addition to our current proposal we are
mailing a copy of our September 1992 report, Mercury
Concentrations in Fish. Plankton, and Water from the St.
Louis River Watershed Including Reservoir Lakes. In order
to remedy this situation we feel that research is needed to
find an efficient means to remediate the toxic sediments to
prevent uptake of mercury into the aquatic food chain. This
innovative approach to remediating toxic sediments could be
replicated in similar situations in other Areas of Concern
in the Great Lakes.
278
1 12-8-92
Demonstration Project Proposal for Sediment ContamJjiant Mitigation
Principle investigators: University of Minnesota -Duluth. J. Sorensen 218-525-7423 •
and G. Rapp, Jr., and
Fond du Lac Indian Reservation - L. Schwarzkopf
The objective of this proposed project is to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness
and applicability of various methods of reducing sediment contaminant caused residue levels
in fish and other biota. This work will be canied out within a series of enclosed areas at one
or more known sediment contaminated sites in the St Louis River and Estuaiy located in high
value habitat areas and/or ne<ir stream inputs.
Sediments that have accumulated behind the reservoir dams contain high amounts of
various contaminants as a result of past industrial practices/discharges within the SL Louis
River watershed. Figure 1 shows mercury concentrations as a function of depth in a sediment
core taken from tlic Thomson Reservoir where the 300 cm total core dcptli represents a
sediment accumulation since 1907. The large peak represents mercuiy impacts during the
1950*s and eariy 1960*s.
Although contaminant concentrations in sediment are significant, other contaminant
sources must also be considered. A comparison of merctuy in water concentrations for
various locations along the SL Louis River Estuary and tributaries (Figure 2) reveals the
existence of watershed mercury sources. In addition, mercuiy concentrations in fish as a
function of location (Figure 3) reveals mercuiy contamination problems from known
sediment hot spots.
The enclosed areas would be rectangular (20ft x 40ft), bordered with walls of snow
fencing covered with reinforced plastic sheeting on three sides and natural shoreline on tlie
fourth side. Each enclosed area would confine (or be stocked with) local bentliic eating
yoimg fish at the start of the field season and analyzed (along with other biota) at the start,
middle, and end of the field season for condition, growth, and levels of contaminants such as
PCBs, PAHs, mercury, and other factois when appropriate. The effectiveness of each
mitigative test will be determined by comparing fish condition and contaminant
concentrations in treated vs untreated enclosed areas (in addition to fish from adjacent areas
outside the enclosed areas). Each residue reduction method being tested would be nm in
duplicate, and therefore a block of 6 adjacent enclosed areas. (4 treatments and 2 controls)
will accommodate 2 simultaneous test conditions.
The mitigation strategies selected for demonstration must be cost effective and
practicable to implement Among mitigation stratepes to be. demonstrated^ . are 1) sedimenV
Suifacc'mijgration barriers such' as coveririg'sediments with clcanor cleaned sediments from
the same water body, 2) addition of contaminant binding ■ substrates such as solid pellet
absorbants, encapsulalors, or mesh of similar properties, and 3) in-place treatment to remove
surface sediment fractions (e.g. organic carbon) that arc higliest in contaminants. Because
some tests (e.g. sediment covering) may mitigate some contaminants more effectively than
others, simultaneous measurements and assessments regarding PCBs, PAHs, and mercuiy
would also be made when applicable.
279
2 12-8-92
Shoreline enclosed areas like those described above are currently being used in
Minnesota by the University of Mirmesota-Duluth researchers <is a too! for mercury
mitigation studies on Crane/Sand Point Lakes and at Indian Point on the SL Louis River.
Another UMD project is also working on sediment contaminant processing techniques that
would be demonstrated in the enclosed areas on the St Louis River Estuary.
This ptDposed project would be a joint effort conducted by staff of the University of
Minnesota-Duluth and the Fond du Lac Natural Resources Department and Q)mni unity
College and is estimated to cost $175,000 for Year 1 and $125,000 for Year 2 to demonstrate
and assess the three treatment strategies that are judged to be the most cost effective and
practicable.
2000
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0
100
200
300
Core Depth, cm
Figure 1. Mercury concentrations (diy weight basis) at various depths in a sediment
core taken from the Thomson Reservoir in 1992 (J. Sorensen, unpublished data: do not
cite, copy, or quote).
280
12-8-92
o
O
15 1-
near WLSSD
( >- 15 ng/L )
10
Inlet to Pokcgama Bay
Kingsbury Creek
Little Pokegama River
Oliver
Slt^ Going Upstream for the Lower SL Louis River
Figure 2. Mercuiy concentrations in water as a Ainclion of sampling sites going upstream
for the lower St. Ia)uis River. Grey bars represent SL Lxiuis River samples while black bars
represent tributaries to the St. I-ouis River (J. Sorensen, unpublished data: do not cite,
copy, or quote).
281
12-8-92
800
^ 700 -
CO
o
S
PI
a>
o
o
U
r r
M
u
►
o
t?
c
9
1^
o
P4
H
o
vs
O
H
o
e
Figure 3. Mercury concentrations in 39 cm walleye within the Sl Louis River
Watershed. Calculated from 1991 data (Sorensen et al.; FDL report, 1992).
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05983 430 7
Memorandum
To: David Cowgill, EPA - Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago
From: Larry Schwarzkopf, Fond du Lac Natural Resource
Manager
Date: January 28,1993
Re: Demonstration Project for Sediment Contaminant
Mitigation
The Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program in cooperation with
the University of Minnesota-Duluth has submitted the
proposal. Demonstration Project for Sediment Contaminant
Mitigation, to the Great Lakes National Program Office of
the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of the original
proposal is attached. At this time I would like to propose
some modifications of our original study design that would
focus our objectives and provide a more efficient study.
The original proposal would investigate on site methods to
remediate contaminated sediments on the St. Louis River
reservoirs and estuary. The basic objectives would remain,
however we would concentrate our efforts on mercury and PCB,
and would test only for some specific PAH's and organic
compounds, such as pyrene, anthracene, flouranthene, and bi-
phenyl. A means to decrease the cost of PCB analysis is
also being considered to decrease the study budget.
The project could be designed as a three year study, which
would give us an additional sampling season to analyze
biotic uptake of contaminants, and additional mitigation
strategies could be tested with the same number of
enclosures. Another benefit of this change is that it would
allow time to test alternative binding agents. We are
planning to conduct a computer search for additional binding
compounds which would have similar properties for binding
mercury or PCB (ie. QSAR Model) . Promising compounds will
be tested in the enclosures for their effectiveness in
binding contaminants.
The three mitigation strategies mentioned in the attached
original proposal would remain basically the same. There
was a comment regarding the third strategy, as to whether it
would involve dredging. This is stated in the proposal as:
"3) in-place treatment to remove surface sediment fractions
(e.g. organic carbon) that are highest in contaminants."
The method would involve new techniques and equipment that
is currently being developed to remove fine particulates
and/or organic fractions, which are commonly associated with
mercury and PCB. After the highly contaminated fractions
283
are removed or treated the cleaner sediments could be
returned to the site. Sediment removal with specialized
equipment to minimize resuspension of toxic sediments has
already been developed, and could be incorporated into this
new technology when full-scale remediation is implemented.
This would prevent the resuspension of sediments that is
associated with the typical means of dredging.
The first strategy mentioned in the report would involve
testing treated particles and mesh which would bind the
contaminants. These binding agents and their carrier could
be left in place or could be removed after they have become
a toxic sync. The use of a polymer mesh may be useful in
stabilizing sediments in areas which would otherwise be
scoured by river currents.
Another approach which might prevent biotic uptake would be
to inject binding agents into the deeper sediments. In many
areas these underlying sediments have higher levels of
contaminants then the overlying sediments of recent origin.
The data on mercury levels of fish from these areas show
that active biotic uptake is still occurring. I am mailing
a copy of our October 1992 report. Mercury Concentrations in
Fish. Plankton, and Water from the St. Louis River Watershed
Including the Reservoir Lakes. This report clearly shows
the increased levels of mercury in fish from areas where
high levels of mercury in the sediments remain or other
factors are contributing to increased mercury methylization.
The original cost estimates for the study could be scaled
down, and we would request that recommendations on total or
yearly project grant levels be provided to us. If you have
any additional questions regarding this proposal please
contact me at (218-879-4593), or John Sorenson at (218-525-
7423) .
o
y
ISBN 0-16-040916-0
9 780160"409165
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11